Re: Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin? (2)

Admin Edit to say that this thread is a continuation of the following thread:

http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=114594#Post114594


Do "true believers" "consent" to having "corrupt channels of humanity"?

Php 2:4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.
Php 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

for this to be read in any sense other than Jesus humbling Himself as an example of how God is does away with the context and lesson of this passage.

not to mention that if Christ had literally emptied Himself of His divinity He would, in that instant, ceased to have existed before He ever had a chance to "clothe Himself with humanity".


its ok to tell God we dont see how Jesus humanity could die and not His divinity but to try and put texts together to come to a conclusion we, faulty, fallen beings, can understand is to walk on very dangerous ground. it is much better to wait on the Lord in many cases.

hmmmm, i wonder where i picked up calvinistic ideas, since i was out of any church for decades and had only the bible and egw.



i read that particular statement in light of these:




again, i read it in the context of what precedes it.


my attention is on Christs-Gods-humility. studying His humility because by "beholding we become changed". He came in a weakened body which green cochoa stated so well. but the important lesson as i see it, is the humility of God.

This would be interesting to pursue. When did you first have these ideas? Can you recall? Was it before you came back to the church, or afterward?



I'm not following you, teresa. She's not talking about Christ's body in either of the quotes I presented. Let's take a look:



This says Christ accepted "humanity" after 4,000 years of sin. She goes on to say that "like every child of Adam" He "accepted" the workings of the "law of heredity." Our fallen nature is passed by heredity. If Christ accepted the working of the law of heredity, like every other fallen human, then He received the same nature from heredity that every other fallen human ("child of Adam") receives. That should be clear.

Now comes the kicker. "What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors." What are the results shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. What are these results? All we need to is read the accounts of David, Rahab, Solomon, etc. to see.

She goes on to say that Christ came with such a heredity as ours to "share our sorrows and temptations." This could hardly be clearer. A Christians most difficult temptations come from within.



Even after regenerated, our most difficult temptations are from within. If Christ came to share our temptations, He must have been tempted from within.

Going back to the DA 24 quote:



Now if Christ took our nature for the purpose of passing through our experiences, and did not bear anything we do not endure, and was tempted in all points as we are tempted, and our most difficult temptations are from within, again it should be clear that Christ was tempted from within.

I completely agree, Teresa.

Sure it is.



Original Sin proponents make these arguments all the time. Christ could not have been tempted from within because being tempted from within is sin. This is the Original Sin idea. Similarly Christ could not have had heredity tendencies to sin, because this would have been sin as well. There is an equating of tendencies, desires and temptations with sin.



This is an impossible interpretation. It ignores the historical realities of the time. Had she had the ideas your investing her with, she could not have endorsed Jones and Waggoner as she did, she could not have endorsed Prescott's sermon, she could not have handled the Holy Flesh movement as she did, to name a few things. This would make her to be feeble-minded (not realizing the Jones and Waggoner's ideas regarding righteousness by faith were wrong) and without integrity (after saying it was important to hold arguments that are wholly sound, she would, in your view, be supporting false arguments).



How did Ellen White and her contemporaries understand "taint of sin"?



Christ had such flesh as our, was tempted in all points as we are, yet was without a taint of sin because He never, even in a thought, cherished a desire or sanctioned an inclination of the flesh.




"Taint of flesh" did not mean to them what it means to you, because they didn't believe in Original Sin.



This makes no sense, because Ellen White affirms that Christ took our sinful nature, and endorsed those who taught this. For example, she endorsed Prescott's sermon on the theme that Christ came in sinful flesh. She also endorsed Jones and Waggoner's teachings on righteousness by faith, which are built upon their understanding of Christ's taking our sinful flesh.



Original Sin is not predicated on Ellen White's sayings at all. It did not come from Ellen White. It came from without the church. This is obvious to see by simply following the history of the thing.

Before the 1950's, there was nothing in SDA literature anywhere proposing the Original Sin ideas. How did these ideas get into the church? Did the church leaders somehow receive an epiphany on how Ellen White's writings should be interpreted which no one had seen before? No! They brought the ideas in with them when they were educated at non-SDA seminaries.

Let's consider things abstractly. Say there is a group A which starts teaching idea X 100 years into their existence, having denied it for the first 100 years. There has to be a reason why. Something introduced idea X into the mix. The most probably explanation is that X came from outside the group and was brought into the group by ones who brought it in with them.

Ellen White says we are born in sin, while Christ took humanity without the taint of sin. Everything is very clear.

What is your explanation for her use of this expression? She says Christ took our fallen nature but did not take the taint of sin. He took our humanity without the taint of sin. He was born without the taint of sin. She obviously also uses this expression for the life He developed, but here she uses it for the humanity He took, for the condition He was born in. What does she mean, Tom?


You are ignoring the clear meaning of the text. Do not present Him as a man with the propensities of sin. Simple. There is no way around it, and there is no other way to interpret it.


As I said, this doesn't work for the passages where she is referring to the humanity He took, since the verb "to take" refers to His life from the moment He was born.


Obviously, she always affirmed that Christ took our fallen nature, but she was very specific. She said Christ took "the nature of man in his fallen condition, but He did not take the taint of sin" (20MR 324.1). She says Christ took "the nature, but not the sinfulness of man" (ST, May 29, 1901 par. 11).

This is what Ellen White says about Adam:

God did not create man sinful. Adam came forth from the hand of his Maker without the taint of evil. {ST, August 26, 1897 par. 4}

The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. {13MR 18.1}

What does she mean here? That Adam was created without having sinned? (Would this make any sense?) Or that he was created without sinful tendencies?

Only if you ignore any interpersonal relationships Ellen White had.



She means what she said elsewhere. Christ took our sinful nature upon His sinless nature. Neither she nor any other SDA's used "taint of sin" to mean original sin.

She says that Christ took "our sinful nature." I don't see how this can be unclear.

She said, in one place:



In another place she said:



She also said:



Although Christ took our sinful nature, He had not "taint of sin." He remained "that only thing," although He took our sinful nature. This would be another way of saying it.



It makes much more sense to interpret the Baker letter with the presupposition that Baker was teaching Adoptionism than that he was teaching the same thing as Jones, Waggoner, Haskell and Jones. Surely you can see the logic of this. Why correct Baker, but not endorse Jones? Why correct Baker, but not Haskell? Why not admit that Donnel was right and Haskell was wrong? Why not correct Jones or Waggoner? Why endorse their teachings of righteousness by faith?

The simple fact of the matter is there is more than one way of interpreting the Baker letter. There's probably a half dozen ways of interpreting it. To force an interpretation upon a private letter which disagrees with the facts of history smacks of desperation.

One could just as well say that there is no other way of interpreting the following than how Haskell did:



This interpretation has the advantage of their being a contemporary of Ellen White who interpreted her writings in the way suggested. You can't produce a single contemporary of hers who interpreted her writings as you suggest.

We know Ellen White endorsed postlapsarians, and we know postlapsarians interpreted her writings to be postlapsarian. You're swimming way, way upstream to suggest she wasn't. There'd have to be much stronger evidence than a private letter of which we don't know the circumstances to deal with this current.



Which is the same thing that Jones and others taught. But none of them believed in Original Sin.



As shown above, Christ was without a taint of sin, although He condescended to take humanity. But she's not saying Christ's sinful nature was sinless.

You've offered no explanation for why she would have acted the way she did. Why would she have endorsed Prescott's sermon that Christ came in sinful flesh? You suggested you agreed with Prescott's sermon, as if Prescott had the same idea in mind for a sinless sinful flesh that you have, but I showed to you that he didn't. Prescott meant by "sinful flesh" just what Haskell, Wagonner, and Jones (who most influenced him on his theology) meant. Ellen White knew what Prescott meant. She was familiar with what Prescott had been teaching. Prescott didn't just present that one sermon. Prescott had been preaching at the 1895 General Conference session as well as at other sermons at Avondale. Ellen White's endorsement of Prescott was continuous during this 1895-1896 period.

Isn't it curious that the more strongly postlapsarian the preaching, the more ringing the endorsements from Ellen White?

???
Sorry, I cannot harmonize what you say with what she said.

"He had not taken on Him even the nature of the angels, but humanity, perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin." {16MR 181.4}

"We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ." {1SM 256.2}

Tom,

I'm with Rosangela on this one. The statements are too clear to be misunderstood, and you are kicking against the pricks. The desperation you speak of is yours, which is why you started out trying to invalidate the Baker letter, and now you are just trying to say it could be interpreted in at least half a dozen ways. I truly do not understand where someone could go wrong on this, but seeing that you are fully convinced in your own mind and wish not to be persuaded otherwise, I will respect that, and not torment you with a bunch of other statements from Ellen White which say the same thing as the "Baker letter." She is consistent. You are not.

There are clearly two parts to "human nature":

1) The flesh
2) The sin

The flesh, in and of itself, is not sinful. If it were, we would all be hopeless sinners until we are transfigured at His coming. In such a case, Jesus has given an impossible command to us, that we obey His commandments. And, in such a case, Jesus Himself would have been a sinner. So the flesh is not sinful, nor is it the source of sin.

The sin which we inherit comes from prenatal influences within the womb. It has little to do with genetics. Genetics may give us weaknesses, but it cannot give us actual sin. Again, if such were the case that the sin was implanted in our genetics, then Jesus would have been a sinner, for He took our genetics.

Jesus took our sin-weakened flesh, but never did He take the sin. He was not born a sinner. He did not start off as a sinner and "come from behind" in order to conquer on our behalf. He was perfect all the way through His life.

This reasoning is so sound and sensible to me, that I do not need Ellen White to tell me. The Bible agrees with this.

Jesus did not need to be tempted from within in order to be "tempted on all points like as we are, yet without sin." He only needed to be tempted. The source of those temptations matters not. There is no text of the scripture that says "Christ was tempted from within." Nor should there be. It is an unnecessary requirement to our salvation.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

"Sinlessness" and "taint of sin" do not have to do with Original Sin. Not just in her writings, but in no SDA writings of her time. You can't cite a single person who used these words in the way you're suggesting.

I checked every reference in Ellen White's writings of "taint of sin," or references with the word "taint" and "sin" in the same paragraph, and could not come up with a single reference, not one, where she says that our nature, or flesh, taints us, although there were many dozens of these references.

On the contrary, she writes that we can be free from the taint of sin in this lifetime, which would hardly be possible if having sinful flesh tainted us.



This is an example of the use of "sinlessness." I've already provided examples of her use of "taint of sin."



Clearly "taint of sin" does not mean "having a sinful nature" here.



Clearly not here either.



Nor here.



I've been concentrating on references that don't include in Christ, but here's one that does. Note that "taint of sin" is tied to obedience.

Here's another one referencing Christ:



She uses "taint of sin" similarly to "taint of disloyalty," clearly not having to do with the flesh.



Another example of her use of "taint."



Another.



Another.



Another.



Boy there's a lot of these. Many uses of the word "taint," but not a single one suggesting that flesh taints.





Another one linking "taint" to obedience.



Here's one that's particular clear in its point. What is it that taints? It is sin.



We may be free from the taint of sin. This would obviously be impossible if our flesh tainted us.



Another one making the same point.



Again, taint has not to do with flesh.



Cherished sin is that which taints. Note the usage is identical to Jones.



It is the pollution of mind which taints.



"Taint" has to do with pollution, which comes about by sin.



We are to flee every taint of sin by being separate from the world.



Again we see what taints.

thats cute!
there are several reasons i stayed out of the church. one of them has to do with some experiences which has made me very picky as to what i read or listen to.

i havent changed regarding that over the years. i am back in the church off and on, more off than on. i havent been to church since october this last time. but when i am there i actively resist what i am hearing. i dont know whos speaking. i dont know if they are into God or not.... they are only human.

i highly value the lightbearer ministry but they "came" to me quite by accident and i still do not read everything they write or listen to everything they have. they also are only human, tho i do believe them to be quite dedicated along with some others of their ilk and some who are not.

so, sorry, cant help you out there. and i dont even really know what you are referring to as calvinistic in my understanding.


it saddens me that this point seems to have been seriously overlooked. this is what i find the most important.

by beholding we become changed. based on her many statements to this effect i have to assume she meant Christs character, and not what kind of human nature He came in.



wow!! i think you "edited" me.

Where do you get this idea from? Here is the Desire of Ages:



Here is Haskell commenting on this passage:



This is how Ellen White was understood.

I notice that no attempt is made to deal with the historical problems of the position you are suggesting. It's not a viable position. It's an historical fact that Ellen White endorsed a specific sermon whose theme was postlapsarian from beginning to end.

Another Desire of Ages statement:



Now if Christ's human nature were exempted from that which makes things difficult for us, then He *didn't* endure all that which we endure, and as Ellen White so aptly points out, Satan would make capital of that fact, presenting the power of God as insufficient for us to obey.

You've also not dealt with any of the other historical points. For example, how could Jones and Waggoner's teaching on righteousness by faith be correct if they didn't understand Christ's human nature correctly, given how tightly interwoven these concepts are in their teachings? Indeed, when, after 1888, Jones and Waggoner's teachings were resisted, Ellen White set upon herself to preach side by side with them, and when the subject of Christ's human nature came up, she said this:



This is in response to Jones and Waggoner's preaching. She was asked how Christ could have taken our fallen nature, as they taught, because if He had, Christ would have fallen under similar temptations that we do. She explained that Christ had to take our nature in order to be tempted as we are tempted, just as Jones and Waggoner were preaching.

In our debate on the question, I fear the practical significance of the issue may have been lost. Indeed, some perusing these posts may wonder, "What difference does it make?"

Although Ellen White made the point many times, I think few grasp the significance of her words that Christ took our fallen nature in order to share in our sorrows and temptations. Who really got me to begin to grasp this was Fifield, from whom a quote an excerpt of a sermon:



I can think of no sermon which has had a greater impact on my life than this one. I'll quote the whole thing separately, and hope it can bless someone else as it has blessed me.

(Fifield sermon follows, from the 1897 General Conference session.)

You will find the basis of our study this evening in the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah and the third verse: "He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not." In connection with this I will read several other verses of the same chapter, and also a translation, which will enable us to obtain the thought more clearly:

"Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions. He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." The other translation reads: "Surely he bore our griefs, yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was pierced through by our sins; he was crushed by our misdeeds. The chastisement of our peace lay upon him, and in his wounds there became healing for us.

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Another translation: "The Lord let all our misdeeds come upon him." Verse eight: "He was taken from prison and from judgment; and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living. For the transgression of my people was he stricken." The other translation: "From distress and judgment was he taken; and in his generation who thought that he should be plucked out of the land of the living for the misdeeds of my people, punishment to them."

Tenth verse: "Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief. When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand." Translation: "It pleased the Lord to let him be crushed; he hath made him sick; when his soul hath given a trespass offering, he shall see seed and live long." The thought is clearly enough expressed in the Authorized Version, but since we are liable sometimes to receive the wrong thought, the translation helps us to see it more clearly.

The third verse states and vividly contrasts the true and the false idea of Christ's mission, and of his work, and of the atonement. One is what was, and the other is what we thought was; one is truth, the other is falsehood; one is Christianity, the other is paganism. We would do well to study every thought in that text. "Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; he was pierced through by our misdeeds, and God permitted it because in his stripes there was healing for us. But we esteemed him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. Whose griefs? Whose sorrows? - Ours.

The grief and the sorrow that crushed the heart of Christ, and took him from among the living, so that he died of a broken heart, was no strange, new grief or sorrow. It was not something unlike what we have to bear; it was not God arbitrarily putting upon him our sins, and thus punishing our sins in him to deliver us. He took no position arbitrarily that we do not have to suffer. It was our griefs and our sorrows that pierced him through.

He took our sinful natures, and our sinful flesh, at the point of weakness to which we had brought it, submitting himself to all the conditions of the race, and placing himself where we are to fight the conflict that we have to fight, the fight of faith. And he did this by the same power to which we have access. By the Spirit of God he cast out devils; through the eternal Spirit he offered himself without spot; and the Spirit of God rested upon him, and made him of quick understanding in the things of God. It was our sins that he took; our temptations.

It is my experience that in nine cases out of ten, when men consider those temptations in the fourth chapter of Matthew, which are typical of all his temptations, they fail to recognize their likeness to our own. They make him tempted in all points like as we are not, rather than like as we are.

Picture to yourselves the wonderful experience that Christ had at his baptism, when he entered upon his mission, when the Spirit of God descended upon him with power, and the voice was heard, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." It would seem that after such an experience as that, it would surely be all smooth sailing. But out there in the wilderness, when the Saviour was in apparent weakness and hunger, the devil pressed him, saying, "If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread."

Have we not had this experience? How many of us can look back to the time when we were baptized, when we heard God saying to us, This is my beloved son, this is my beloved daughter, in whom I am well pleased; and we thought we would have smooth sailing, but soon found ourselves out in some wilderness of temptation, conscious of our weakness, and the devil came along and said, You are a pretty servant of God.

Again the devil took him up into a high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the earth, and said: "All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me." The circumstances were such as to make it plain that the design of the devil was to lead him to bow down and support a god of force, instead of making him the king of the world. He would have him be untrue to his mission. And so he would have us, by some false method, to think that we may make a great many more dollars, and to see how much of the world we can get. When he failed with Christ on these two points, he pressed him farther to get him to presume upon the mercy of God. Just so he would tempt us to presume upon the mercy of God.

He took our sorrows, our griefs, all the conflicts of our lives upon him, and was tempted in all points as we are. He took the injustices of our lives upon him too. It is a fact that you and I have to suffer for many things for which we are not at fault. All my suffering is not the result of my sin. Some of it is; but just as long as sin exists, injustice exists.

As long as men sin, men will be sinned against. Just so you and I will have to suffer for the sins of others; and so God, to show that he knew and realized all that, let him that was perfectly innocent, take the injustice and sin of us all. O brethren and sisters, he did not bear some other grief or some other sorrow, but he bore our griefs and our sorrows. He was pierced through by them, and the Lord permitted it, because there was healing in it for us; not that he might appease God, or reconcile him unto us.

Every passage of Scripture that refers to the reconciliation or atonement, or to the propitiation, always represents God as the one who makes this atonement, reconciliation, or propitiation, in Christ; we are always the ones atoned for, the ones to be reconciled. For us it was done, in order that, as Peter says, he might bring us to God.

The only way to do this is by destroying sin in us. He took our sins upon him in order that he might bring us to God. It was that he might break down the high middle wall of partition between human hearts and God, between Jew and Gentile, between God and man; that he might make us one with him, and one with one another, thus making the at-one-ment, or the atonement.

In Christ Jesus we who were sometimes afar off were made nigh by the blood of Christ, so that we are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth into an holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." This is as near to the Lord as we can get. This is the at-one-ment; this is why he bore our griefs and carried our sorrows, that he might do that for us by breaking down all those things which separate hearts from hearts, both human and divine.

Notwithstanding this, we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. That was what we thought about it. We said, God is doing all this; God is killing him, punishing him, to satisfy his wrath, in order to let us off. That is the pagan conception of sacrifice. The Christian idea of sacrifice is this. Let us note the contrast. "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." That is the Christian idea. Yes, sir. Indifference keeps, hatred keeps, selfishness keeps, or gives, if at all, but grudgingly, counting the cost, and figuring on some larger return at some future time. But love, and love only, sacrifices, gives freely, gives itself, gives without counting the cost; gives because it is love. That is sacrifice, whether it is the sacrifice of bulls and goats, or of him who is the Lamb of God. It is the sacrifice that is revealed throughout the entire Bible. But the pagan idea of sacrifice is just the opposite. It is that some god is always offended, always angry, and his wrath must be propitiated in some way.

If it is an ordinary case, the blood of bulls and goats will suffice; but if it is an extraordinary case, the blood of some innocent virgin or child must flow; and when the god smells the blood, his wrath is appeased. We talk of pagan immortality, pagan Sunday, pagan idolatry, etc.; but it seems to me that the lowest thought is that men have brought this pagan idea of sacrifice right into the Bible, and applied it to the sacrifice of the cross. So the Methodist Discipline uses these words: "Christ died to reconcile the Father unto us;" that is, to propitiate God so that we could be forgiven - paganism straight out.

Why, brethren and sisters, it is the application of the pagan conception of sacrifice to the sacrifice upon the cross, so that that wonderful manifestation of divine love, which God intended should cause all men, all beings in the universe, to wonder and adore, has been turned around and made a manifestation of wrath to be propitiated in order to save man. I am glad that we are losing sight of this manner of viewing the subject, where we do not say that Christ died to reconcile the Father unto us. Brethren, there is sometimes such a thing as to give up the expression of a thing, and think we have thus gotten rid of it, when a good deal of it still lingers and clouds our consciousness of the love of God, and the beauty of his truth, so that we cannot present a clear gospel to hungry souls that are waiting to know about God.

I pray that God will let the sunlight of his truth shine into my heart, and into all of our hearts. Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows that he might bring us to him; but we esteemed him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. That is what we thought; that is what we esteemed; not what was, but what we thought was. Now, every text in the Bible that speaks of reconciliation, makes God the one who makes the reconciliation, - God in Christ. Every text in the Bible that speaks of the atonement, when we get it right, makes God the one who makes the atonement in Christ; not Christ simply, but God in Christ; just as God in Christ creates, redeems, reconciles, he makes the atonement. And every time the atonement, reconciliation, or propitiation are mentioned, it leads us right back to the character of God. So I want to begin right here, and study God a little, and study him as the All Truth. He is the All Truth. He is love. "God is love." Let us analyze that just a little, and see what it means.

Does it mean that God is love, and part something else? - No. The Bible says that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. God is truth. Christ says, "I am the truth"; and again, "I and my Father are one;" so God is truth. He is the All Truth of the universe made living and personal, and touched with tender, throbbing love. That is God, and that is Christ too. Yes, he is the light, and in him is no darkness at all. He is all love and no hatred. Very well.

SOME one says, I know, I know; God is love, but he is love and justice. Now the minute a man says that, and means what he says, there is nothing more unjust in this universe than his idea of justice. Let us think of that for a moment. Is there justice outside of love. Suppose I love A and B. But I love A more than B. Is it my lack of love to B that prompts my love for A? - No, it is not. Now is there such a thing as loving a man with an impartial love. Can I be unjust to anybody? God is just, because he is love.

We talk about the mercy of God. What is mercy? - Disposition to treat an offender better than he deserves. We talk about his grace. Grace is unmerited favor. That is the way God does. Shows unmerited favor. All these are moral attributes of love.
How does righteousness come? Righteousness, which is the fulfilling of the law, is simply acting out the acts of love. How am I going to act out the acts of love? Try real hard to love somebody? It does not come that way. Did you ever try it? No, sir; you cannot make it that way. But if somebody acts loveable, you love him. And so the reason God can love everything, and thus act out the acts of love, is because God is love.

He has manifested himself to beget his love in us, and that love flows out in righteousness. Then the power of God is the power of love. If I had time I would carry that beyond moral power; it is even the power that upholds the universe. It is all.

And now a moment on the omniscience of God. I want to show you that if God should cease to be all-loving, he would cease to be all-knowing. Can hatred, envy, and jealousy know and comprehend love? The infinite Love was once in this world, in human form; and what did they do to him? - They crucified him. What did they crucify him for? - Because they knew him not. Hatred, envy, and jealousy can look infinite Love in the face, and not know it. Only love can comprehend love. Love can also see hatred, envy, and jealousy in their true light, because love seeth, knoweth, and comprehendeth all things. And that is why God can be omniscient, because he is love. It is one of the attributes of love. But some one says that God is love and, and -. God is love, and he is not anything but love. All the attributes of God are the attributes of love.

And then there is the wrath of God that you read about all through the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. I want to turn and read a text on this point. We can only understand these things that are brought to view in the Bible, when we see them in the light and the grace of the revelation of God.

The scripture I will read is found in 2Cor.3:12-16: "Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: and not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished." God had many things to show to them that they could not bear; and as they could not see the true glory as it was, he had to vail it, so they could take it. "But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away." And, brethren, if we want to understand what God has said all through this Book, we want to turn to him, and we will understand all.

Was there ever a being in this world that hated sin as Christ hates it? - No. Was there ever a being who loved the sinner as Christ loved him? - No. Suppose I hate a man, and somebody is trying to do that man an injury, and I see it, and do not try to prevent it. Do I care whether that man is injured or not? - No; I am rather glad of it. But suppose I love that man, and here is a man that is trying to thrust a dagger into him and kill him. Now the measure of my hatred for that deed is the measure of my love for that man. I am liable to hate the man that is doing the deed, too. But I hate the deed, anyway. Now, brethren, the measure of God's hatred for sin, is the measure of his love for the sinner.

Sin has been lurking with murderous intent to take the life of every soul. God's wrath is kindled against the sin. Is that wrath going to be appeased in any way? O if it were, it would be a bad thing for us. That wrath of God against sin is to burn on until it consumes every bit of sin in this universe. Just as long as God loves the sinner, he will hate the sin, and his wrath against the sin will burn; and, thank God! that wrath against sin is going to burn, unchanged, until the universe is clean.

But look: the plan of redemption is God's effort to separate the sin from the sinner, so that he can destroy the sin, and save the sinner alive forevermore. And only when the sinner inseparably connects himself with sin, does he have to take the wrath of God. And does the Lord take delight in that? - No. When you and I have wrath, we have wrath against the man. But how about God? "As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked," but rather that he turn and repent. Turn ye, turn ye; for why will ye die. The wrath of God is not against the wicked, even in their extermination; but because the wicked have inseparably connected themselves with sin, they have to break it; and the Lord says he does not take any pleasure in that.

You remember that when Christ pronounced the doom of Jerusalem, he was not angry with them, but said, "How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" O if thou hadst known, in this thy day, the things that belong to thy peace; but now they are hid from thy eyes. And that is the way God feels, even when he pronounces the doom of the sinner; not a bit different from what he feels the rest of the time - infinite love and only love, from eternity to eternity.

Every one of the attributes of God are the attributes of love. And so we want to stop saying, God is love and something else. He is love, and love contains everything that he is.

Now this God of love, whose wrath burns only against the sin, and not against the sinner - this God of love gave a law for mankind. I have but a moment to spend on that. That law was not a dead law; it was not an arbitrary law. It was not a law saying, You do so, and I will let you live; You do so, and I will kill you. But God in infinite wisdom foreknew every principle of life and light and joy; and in infinite wisdom he foretold what he foreknew. This way, my child, is life and joy. Don't you go that way, my child; that way is death. Every bit of that law is simply the life of God, which is the love of God. It had the creative power of God in it. It was not something outside of man that man must do in order to live, but it was something that God wanted to put in him and leave in him; so many divine promises, if you please. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." When we have him, we do not want any other. That is a promise. Thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not kill. These are loving, divine, creative promises, which God intended to put in us, to carry us to the utmost heights of joy and peace, and keep us in that path forevermore.

Now man transgressed that law, and thus cut himself off from the life of God, and hopelessly committed himself to the downward tendency to evil and death. The very first act of sin put him into the Niagara current of evil, which rushed down toward the cataract; and as he went on, he did not have the desire to get out.

His thoughts were downward; and a man in that position is just as much dead as if he went right over the falls - he is gone. And that is where sin put man; and sin is cumulative in its action upon the race. We saw that all righteousness is love acting out the acts of love; so love is the basis, the source, of all righteousness. But just as love is the source of all righteousness, so hatred is the source of all iniquity.

Suppose I tell my boy not to do a certain thing, and he disobeys my command, and no harm comes to him. That proves that my law is an arbitrary one. But suppose he disobeys my command, and does get hurt; that proves that my law was not arbitrary at all.

From sin came misery; from misery came misunderstanding of God; from misunderstanding of God, more hatred of God, and still more sin, and still more misery and more misunderstanding. And so it went on and on, the environment and heredity increasing toward evil, and the whole world going hopelessly on, spinning down into the abyss of sin, hated and hating one another. And so it has been thought that God's sense of justice and his sense of wrath should be appeased, so that we could have justice; the thing that was needed was that God should so manifest himself, his love, as to win us to love, that we might act out the acts of love. That is the thing that was needed, not that we should so appease his wrath in some way that we dare come to him, but that he should manifest his love so that we would come to him.

Suppose here is a man that does a wrong thing to me; he hates me, and he lies about me, and he injures me, and misrepresents me. What shall I do? Shall I say, When you satisfy my sense of justice, and make that thing right, so that I think the thing is all right, then I will pardon you? I am not godlike when I do that. If I am godlike, what will I do? What does the Bible say? - "Ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted." When that man wrongs me that way, if I am spiritual, if I am like God, who is a spirit and the father of spirits, how will I feel about it? - I will feel that the mere fact of his injuring me is such a small thing, and the fact that he has injured himself and will go down to death is such a big thing, that the first will sink out of sight; and I will go to that man, in love, not seeking to set him right toward me for my sake, but I will seek to restore him for his own sake.

That is what I will do if I am a Christian; and yet people teach that when we sin against God, and misrepresent God, he sits back and says, When I get my full satisfaction, I will grow propitious to you. O, instead of that, God gave his Son, in love, to bring us to repentance, so that he could pardon us. And just simply to restore us, and propitiate us who had become fallen in sin, and misunderstood him, and bring us back to him, and to reconcile us to him, he gave his own life, in his Son, - just that he might do that thing for us. That is the kind of God he is.

O, but you say, Christ paid the debt, and set us free. That is true, and every one of those texts in the Bible is true. When God tells us how he forgives sin, what does he say? Well, a certain man owed another man five hundred pence, and when he had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave him. That is the way God forgives sin. Christ is the price of our pardon; that is true. But let me state it: Jesus Christ is not the price paid to the Father for our pardon; but he is the price which the Father paid to bring us to a repentant attitude of mind, so that he could pardon us freely. O, that is God, brethren. That is the Father that I love so much. I have not words to tell you how I love him. That is how God forgives sin - passes by the iniquity of his people. Christ was the free gift of God, to bring us to the place where he could pardon us freely.

But some one said to me the other day, Did not Christ have to die to make the Word of God sure? because God said, If ye sin, ye shall die. In the first place, what did God mean when he said, If you sin, you will die? Did that include spiritual, physical, and eternal death? Did Christ die the spiritual or the eternal death? - No. Then is not that whole thing a fraud? And every time the Bible speaks of the debt, it is God that paid the debt in Christ, to propitiate us, to reconcile us. But still, you say, it had to be done before God could pardon. Yes, that is true; and I want to show you why; and then to-morrow night we will continue the subject by studying the sacrifice of Christ, and seeing that it is a larger thing than you have probably thought it was.

Any pardon and any forgiveness that would not take away the effect of sin, but that would lead us more and more into sin, and into the misery that comes from sin, would be worth nothing. If the law of God was an arbitrary thing, that did not have any penalty attached to it, the Lord could say, I will pardon you. But when you transgress that law, it is death; and when you keep the law, it is life and joy and peace.

Now read the seventh verse of the first chapter of Ephesians: "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence." If God had not been wise, he might have pardoned our sins in an imprudent way.

Now, brethren, every father in this world knows what it is to want to let his children do things which they would enjoy doing, and he has to restrain that which would bring present pleasure, restrain that love, because of the evil effects it would have.
Was sin ever less repentant than at the foot of the cross? There you have the thing. There was God revealing himself in Christ on the cross, and there was sin unrepentant, hatred and mocking at the foot of the cross. How did God feel toward those unrepentant sinners? - "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."

That is how Christ felt, and that is how God felt. He did not have any grudge against them. He would like to forgive everybody. But why could he not do it? - It would annul his law, if it was an arbitrary law; but if it were not, it would lead men to go into sin, and sin and death would result. It would be God simply taking the place of the imprudent father and spoiling his child. And therefore, because he could not do that, he set forth Christ to be, not the propitiation of God's wrath, but the propitiation of our sins, that God might be just, and still the justifier of them who believe in Jesus; because he would take the sins away from them if they believed in him, and then he could set them free, and be just in doing it, for he would not lead anybody else into sin in doing it.

O, I am so glad that we have a God whose very nature and disposition is to pardon sin; that we have a Father who is not holding any grudge against us, but instead of that, is giving his own life, in his Son, that he may so manifest his love as to bring us back to him, and so give us the life power as to live his life. It was needed that his life should be revealed, and his divine life imparted, that we might live that life on earth; and that is what he did in Christ.

O, I am so glad we have such a God as that, who gives his own life to win us back to him! The love of God is the one unchanging thing in a universe of change. Just as the waters of a flood might run high above the mountain tops, but they could not obscure the sun in the heavens; so the waves of sin might dash high above every human affection, but they cannot change the heart of God. O brethren, we have a God that loves sinners, and that forgives sin, and that gives his own life, in his Son, to bring us to repentance, so that he can forgive us. That is the kind of God we have. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing our iniquities unto us, and giving unto us the ministry of reconciliation.

How could God love a sinner? "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son." That word "world" is cosmos; it means order, harmony, beauty, arrangement. You see the world was out of harmony, out of order; but God saw underneath the world of evil, the cosmos that was, the order that was to be, and he loved the cosmos that was, and gave his life to bring out the harmony.

The Spirit of God brooding over the chaos - that love of not merely what is, but what is to be, that love of the possible - O brethren, he broods over the chaos of your life and mine. It is not simply the chaos in the great big world; but he brings out the possible in us, and restores us to his image. That is the kind of God we have.

And he has committed to us that same thing, too, so that when we become like him, we can love all men, coarse though they be on the outside. And when we have the divine life of God, which sees beneath the surface, we will see loveliness in every character, that we long to live out, and long, as God does, to bring out.
With the story which I shall now relate we will close the subject for this evening. It is the story of the wonderful legend of the Holy Grail, wrought out into verse by James Russell Lowell. It has had a wonderful lesson in it for me. Sometimes we try to love God off into space, hoping it will hit him somehow; but I think God wants us to love every man all around us; and God wants us to have such keen eyes that we will see the Christ in every man, and love him.

You know the story runs that Launfal started to find the Holy Grail, and one June morning he rode, grandly caparisoned, in search of the Holy Grail, to enter upon his life mission. And as he rode along down there, a beggar was sitting there, asking alms; and he averted his face as he went by, and flung a coin to him. And he passed on, and traveled in many lands, and spent years in his search. But he came back to the old home, unable to find the object of his search; and riding up that same avenue toward that mansion, a beggar was sitting there as before. Launfal looked at him, and he reasoned something like this: His life is a failure; but has not mine been, too? Here I have been striving and struggling, and failed; and here is a failure, too. He somehow felt akin to that poor old beggar now. And as he put his hand in his pocket and passed out a coin, his heart went out to him with the coin; and instantly, as the legend goes, that beggar was transformed into the Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, for whom he had been looking.

O brethren, he is near us; he is all around us. He gave his life to bring us back to him, and he has committed unto us that same business, too, that same reconciliation. And O may he enable us to see him in human forms all around us, so that we can feel just as he does, giving our lives to bring out the image of Christ in the most defaced form there is around us.

I want to close by saying to every one, that we have a God that forgives iniquity. The only people that will be destroyed at last will be those that have their weapons in their hands. He will forgive you if you will lay down your arms. May God reveal his love to us more and more, and in us more and more, is my prayer.

As I pointed out in my post # 112010, Ellen White uses the expression in two senses:
1) the pollution which comes from acts/thoughts of sin, and
2) the pollution which comes from a sinful nature. The second sense is obvious in the passages where she says that Christ took our fallen nature but did not take the taint of sin, that the humanity He took was without the taint of sin, that He was born without the taint of sin.

And finally I quoted the references to Adam.

God did not create man sinful. Adam came forth from the hand of his Maker without the taint of evil. {ST, August 26, 1897 par. 4}

The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. {13MR 18.1}

Please pay attention to what she is saying. She says God did not create man sinful, but without the taint of sin. What does this mean, Tom?

Tom, this is funny. You keep repeating the same arguments over and over again, as if their repetition could add to their strength.

So I will post again a quote from an author Ellen White borrowed heavily from. It's interesting you don't quote this as "historical evidence:"

Octavius Winslow is another author that Ellen White read and borrowed from in her understanding of the human nature of Christ. The following passage in found in Winslow’s book The Glory of the Redeemer in His Person and Work (London: John Farquhar Shaw, 1855), pp. 129, 132-135. One can see Ellen White’s similar use of Winslow’s thoughts in 5BC 1131 and 16MR 181-183....

"But his [Christ’s] taking up into subsistence with his own, our nature in its fallen condition, comprehends the sinless infirmities and weaknesses with which it was identified and encompassed. 'That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses.'" (129)

"Our Lord’s exposure to temptation, and his consequent capability of yielding to its solicitations, has its foundations in his perfect humanity. It surely requires not an argument to show that, as God, he could not be tempted, but that, as man, he could. His inferior nature was finite and created; it was not angelic, it was human. It was perfectly identical with our own,– its entire exemption from all taint of sin, only excepted. A human body and a human mind were his, with all their essential and peculiar properties. He was 'bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh:' he travelled up through the stages of infancy, boyhood, and manhood; he was encompassed with all the weaknesses, surrounded, that belong to our nature. He breathed our air, trod our earth, at our food. The higher attributes of our being were his also. Reason, conscience, memory, will, affections, were essential appendages of that human soul which the Son of God took into union with his Divine. As such, then, our Lord was tempted. As such, too, he was capable of yielding. His finite nature, though pure and sinless, was yet necessarily limited in its resources, and weak in its own powers. Touching his inferior nature, he was but man. The Godhead, as I have before remarked, was not humanized,– nor was the humanity deified, by the blending together of the two natures. Each retained its essential character, properties, and attributes, distinct, unchanged, and unchangeable." (132-133)

"But let no one suppose that a liability in Jesus to yield to Satan’s temptations, necessarily implies the existence of the same sinful and corrupt nature which we possess. Far from it. To deny his capability of succumbing to temptation, were to neutralize the force, beauty, and instruction of this eventful part of his history altogether. It were to reduce a splendid fact to an empty fable, a blessed reality to a vague supposition; it were to rob Jesus of the great glory which covered him when left alone, the victor on this battle-field. And yet, that he must necessarily be sinful in order to be thus capable of yielding, does not follow; it is an error in judgment to suppose that the force of a temptation always depends upon the inherent sinfulness of the person who is tempted. The case of the first Adam disproves this supposition, and in some of its essential features strikingly illustrates the case of the second Adam. In what consisted the strength of the assault before whose fearful onset Adam yielded? Surely not in any indwelling sin, for he was pure and upright. There was no appeal to the existence of any corrupt principles or propensities; no working upon any fallen desires and tendencies in his nature; for, until the moment that the blast swept him to the earth, no angel in heaven stood before the throne purer or more faultless than he. But God left him to the necessary weakness and poverty of his own nature, and thus withdrawing His Divine support and restraint, that instant he fell! That our adorable Lord did not fall, and was not overcome in his fearful conflict with the same foe, was owing solely to the upholding of the Deity, and the indwelling and restraining power of the Holy Spirit, which he possessed without measure." (133-134)

Winslow argues that Christ did have weaknesses and infirmities but no corrupt principles or propensities in him. Like Melvill, Winslow espoused a view of Christ’s nature where Christ inherited the post-fall human infirmities and weaknesses which enabled him to be tempted as we are but he inherited no propensities to sin.

http://www.andrews.edu/~fortind/EGWNatureofChrist.htm

Wow, you all have been busy. Will slowly try to catch up, I know, an unlikely reality I'm now slowly finding out. For now, a quick comment on the latest post.


True, EGW was influenced by many sources. But what exactly does this imply? That she fully trusted the source's whole theology? I don't think that is a wise heurmenutic.

In any case, here Douglass dispels this faulty tendency:


His argumentation sounds reasonably balanced and ethically correct, doesn't it? Should we honestly then join EGW's theology to Winslow's simply because she quoted them?

More importantly, did she ever endorse Winslow and Melville's theology? On the other hand, did she ever endorse Jones and Waggoner's theology?

Just some thoughtful questions to lather up the lethargic spirit.

William

I don't think his argumentation is balanced; it is biased. On quoting an author, Ellen White employed the terminology which she considered correct, and left out, or modified, what she considered incorrect. And by the way, Ellen White employed many concepts of the Covenant Theology, although she wasn't a Calvinist.

She doesn't use it in this second sense. I looked at every reference, and she never says that we receive a taint from our nature. If you could find some reference somewhere to the idea that we are tainted by our nature, that would lend some support to that idea.

In the list I provided, you will notice she says we can be free from every taint of sin. That would hardly be possible if our natures tainted us.

This has practical significance in relation to Christ's mediation. If merely having a sinful nature taints us, how could the 144,000 ever stand before God without a Mediator?





It means "without sin."

Two things: 1) What is "sin"?

If you consider sin to be just an act, then the sentences would mean, "Adam came forth from the hand of his Maker without the taint of an act of sin." "The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without the taint of an act of sin; he was in the image of God."

If you think this makes sense, how am I going to convince you that it doesn't? But if sin is more than an act, if it is also our nature, these texts clearly refer to Adam's nature.

2) Does "sin" taint? The text says it does.

Good day, R. Yes, this would be what you would think.

And, yes, you've been recently reading what Evangelical Adventists have written regarding Ellen White's theology.

And, yes, I must also agree that she was influenced by her environment, including her adaptation of minor nuances from contemporary authors.

However, in the end, and this is boiling it all down, can we truly coalesce EGW's Sanctuary/IJ doctrine with Covenant Theology?

So then it is here, right here, where EGW and Reformationist theology necessarily divide and become permanently polarized.

Ask Ford.

William

You are mistaken, William. I don't read anything at all about Ellen White or about what others think her theological positions are. I just read Ellen White.

And what exactly in Covenant Theology do you think disagrees with the Sanctuary/IJ doctrine?

Are you serious? Or are you simply testing my theological IQ or mental acuity? Humor me.

William

Was referring to the source you quoted from the QODC website.

William

Ah, just caught my mistake. Saw "andrews.edu" and assumed prematurely.

William

No, I'm serious, but I'm referring to the main framework of Covenant Theology and not to nuances in the understanding of righteousness by faith (I'm not with Calvin or the evangelicals about this, btw).

Are you having problems reloading Maritime. I am. It's loading extremely slow today. Strange. Anyway.

Why would you even suggest CT teaches our IJ doctrine?

I'm actually trying to understand your insinuation, but am struggling to grasp any connection between the two. Help?

William

R, I'm still scratching my head. No way can CT or any other theological system allow for the blotting out of sins!

And, no, "perfectionism" according to the CT framework, is not what were dealing with here. So, please, don't come with that angle, or we'll be here all day deconstructing definitions. Boring. Ha.

Adventism still adheres to "sinless perfection," but certainly not the way it is defined by Covenant theologians.

Again, why the insinuation? You should know better than that.

William

I was just going to comment about that. I'm having problems, too.


You suggested that CT has something to do with the IJ doctrine (post #112065). It's like saying that the Sabbath has something to do with the IJ doctrine. Well, it does, for all doctrines are interrelated, but there is no direct connection between the two.

This is off topic, but in case you are interested, this is its main framework, and how it agrees with what EGW says. From a post of mine in an old thread, Destruction of the Wicked. Post #13507, May 23 2005.

http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=13488#Post13488

Sure. Out of curiosity I'll brush up on it and try to see what you're seeing. BTW, Heppenstall also echoed Covenant-like soteriology. And his conclusions were what I was intimating by juxtaposing CT and the IJ:


So there goes the Most Holy Place for CTs, I guess.

I've got some reading to do.

William

They're strong enough the first time. I keep repeating them because they haven't been addressed. You're the only one who's even acknowledged that the point has been made. As I've pointed out, I believe this is the weakest point in the theology. Yes, one can try to parse Ellen White this way or that way, but history does not lie. We know how her contemporaries understood her, and she was alive to correct them had they been wrong. We know how she interacted with them. She endorsed Jones and Waggoner's teachings, as well as Prescott, even when speaking specifically on the subject at hand. She disagreed with Donnell and sided with Haskell, Waggoner, and Jones in their fight against the Holy Flesh movement.

Just imagine if the following were true:

1.A couple of ministers preached a message of righteousness by faith based on the premise of Original Sin.
2.A third minister joined them, preaching a specific sermon on Original Sin, and she endorsed him as well, including that specific sermon.
3.A movement arose, called the "sinful flesh" movement, teaching that Christ took the nature of Adam after the fall. SDA's opposed this movement by arguing that Christ took the nature of Adam before the fall. Ellen White supported the SDA's in their fight against the Holy Flesh movement.
4.A minister quoted from "The Desire of Ages" and commented, "This is not fallen humanity with its hereditary tendencies to evil," to which she offered no comment.
5.She preached alongside the two preachers mentioned above. She received questions regarding their teaching, and explained that Original Sin had to be true, or else Christ would have been tempted from within, as we are.

This is what I think is funny. The history so clearly demonstrates what the truth is, for anyone who wishes to investigate it. Where did the new ideas come from regarding Original Sin? People just had an epiphany on how Ellen White should be interpreted? Nobody knew how to read her writings until 1950?

True that (thanks, Arnold). However, the basis for Adventism is Daniel 8:14 and Rev. 14:12, and from what I read of your synopsis of CT, a final resolution to the great controversy is missing.

Some of what we're discussing on the "Christ Desired and Lusted to Sin" thread, though thoroughly enjoyable, is also a bit tedious at times. Few would disagree, I imagine.

The question of the nature of Christ, to me, is not a debate over the finer theological points we've been recently participating in.

The big picture demands that either the cleansing of the sanctuary (1844) is to purify and perfect a denomination to stand without sin, or orthodox Adventism is the result of the inability of certain "wild-eyed irresponsibles" and "lunatic fringe" to admit that their prophetic view of Daniel and Revelation is incorrect.

Consequently, the real issue becomes whether or not we can overcome sin. If Jesus could not enter the great controversy conflict and overcome in sinful flesh, our flesh, then we can't either.

Is this really what Evangelical Adventists want to challenge?

In the end, I pray to remain married to this Adventism—and the remnant church—because in my christology, harmartiology, soteriology, and eschatology. . . Jesus is married to me.

William

I turn my head for a minute and look at the mess you guys made! I expect this to be all cleaned up by the time I come back!

Look, after she endorsed Crozier and William Smith, I realized that her endorsements were of a very general nature, because many points they taught were in flagrant disharmony with what she taught.
And as I've pointed out seeeveral times, she herself said there were some points on which she disagreed with Waggoner. What I don't understand is why you try to dismiss this kind of statement, making it appear that she endorsed everything he said.
I've also pointed out in the past that she did not always correct people. Many of them probably weren't ready to be corrected. Waggoner himself doesn't seem to have accepted, or understood, what EGW wrote in The Desire of Ages, for a couple or so of years later he published Christ and His Righteousness, still presenting the view that Christ had had a beginning.
So I have addressed your points in the past. You keep repeating them but I don't think every time I have to repeat the same refutations, especially because it will always be useless, since we will not reach an agreement.
As to original sin, of course one thing is tied to the other. If they believed Christ's humanity had sinful tendencies, how were they going to believe in original sin? Of course one tends to not consider the quotes which seem to go against one's view. You accuse non-postlapsarians of this, but this applies to both parties.
By the way, don't forget to address my post #112064.

Kind of like saying I am wrong because somebody in Muncie a century ago was wrong, and he said things that sound kind of like what I am saying. Yeah, nuts.

BTW, if a postlapsarian teaches that Jesus was "just like" him, and he proceeds to demonstrate to me exactly how sinful his nature is, I can either believe the postlaps and decide that I want nothing to do with Jesus, or I can believe other testimonies about Jesus and decide that the postlaps doesn't know what he's talking about. I ask myself, "Do I want to be like him?" The answer is No.

But when I look at Jesus and ask, "Do I want to be like Him?" The answer is Yes.

How is it missing? Christ regained for us the heaven Adam forfeited. The second coming of Christ will bring the reward of eternal life to those who accepted the provisions of the covenant of grace and returned to their loyalty during probationary time.


Why does someone have to believe that Christ's humanity had tendencies to sin in order to believe that victory is possible? Does a drug addict have to believe that Christ felt the compulsion to use drugs in order for him to believe that he can overcome? What about a homossexual? And a prostitute? I've never seen things in this light, but when, feeling the power of sin, I cried for help, the Holy Spirit has always brought me victory.

By the way, I didn't understand the reference to Arnold.

It would be like that if Ellen White wrote specifically that Larry Kilpatrick was wrong and Norman Gulley was right.



This sounds confused. At any rate, the postlapsarian theology to be concerned with is that which took place in the 1890's. We shouldn't be teaching things different than what was being taught then. We have plenty of source material from Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott, all of which were endorsed by Ellen White.



That's good. And you can be like Him, because He took your sinful nature upon His sinless nature and prepared the way, as Prescott explained in the sermon that Ellen White endorsed.

She didn't endorse them thousands of time, nor do so with the language she used with Waggoner and Jones. She referred to Jones and Waggoner's message as "the beginning of the latter rain," as a "message from God" and wrote strong rebukes against those who opposed it. Sort of gives on pause.



This is really badly misquoting her. If you look at the context, what she was trying to do was open up the minds of those in opposition to investigating what was being said. She wasn't saying she right and they were wrong, but that there may be some new stuff for her as well. She said she would be as a little child to receive all that the Lord had for her. She was *learning* from Waggoner when she made this remark, and encouraging others to do the same, not setting herself up as a judge over him.

I'm only aware of one issue that she disagreed with either Jones or Waggoner on regarding theology, and that was over Waggoner's assertion that Jesus could not sin, because He had perfect faith. Waggoner quickly corrected that.

The fact that she was quick to point out this error, and that Waggoner quickly took the correction to heart, makes one wonder how one could possibly think that she would allow Jones and Waggoner to go on and on and on and on and on regarding Christ's taking our sinful flesh, if that's not what she believed. This was the cornerstone of their theology. How could she have endorsed it as a "message of God" as "truth separated from error" (in the case of Prescott) if, in reality, it was fundamentally wrong?



You're misquoting the statement. I'm not dismissing it; I'm reading it in context. Again, she only corrected on error that I'm aware of. She specifically endorsed the view of the Covenants, of the nature of Christ, of the law in Galatians. What I don't understand is how you can dismiss these comments, disagree with 90% of what Waggoner taught, and somehow convince yourself that you agree with Ellen White's endorsements of their message.

Every time I quote something from Waggoner or Jones, regardless of the subject, you disagree with it. I can't think of when you've agreed with it, and I've quoted dozens and dozens of pages. There's a serious disconnect here.



This is a very weak argument. There is what, one, reference to Waggoner's saying something in some article? Both Waggoner and Jones theology of righteousness by faith was predicated on Christ's taking our fallen human nature. Jones said there was salvation in this very thing. They both emphasized this for years.

You make these extrapolations that don't fit. You want to equate one endorsement for Crozier or Luther with over a thousand for Jones and Waggoner, or one reference to Christ's divinity with hundreds regarding Christ's humanity. These aren't valid comparisons.



You're the only one. No one else has uttered a peep.



Your "refutations" don't hold water. They've been "swept aside," to use the water metaphor.



I agree that it's human nature to emphasize the quotes which favor us and de-emphasize the ones that don't. I've made this very point. This is why the study of the historical setting is so important. We can interpret her this way or that, but what happened in history is set in stone. We know who she endorsed, and what sermons she endorsed, and who she fought against.

If you recall, there was only one "firm platform" for EGW's theology (EW 258): The Three Angels' Messages.

Who do you think it was that failed to accept the first and second messages? And why?

I dare speculate Reformed theology of every stripe has yet to enter into the Most Holy Place and Third Angel's Message, or what is the sanctuary's final cleansing of humanity's heart in preparation for Christ's return.

I believe it is at this precise juncture that our respective theologies part.

"And by rejecting the two former messages, they have so darkened their understanding that they can see no light in the third angel's message, which shows the way into the most holy place. . . the nominal churches had crucified these messages, and therefore they CANNOT be benefited by the intercession of Jesus there." EW 260-261.

Ellen White couldn't have been addressing Hodge, Warfield, or Barth in Protestant America, right?

You talk of "provisions of grace," and I say a true prophet has clarified exactly where these provisions may today be found!

Again, our theologies stem from different powers, if you will, and thus end in very different places in the eschaton.

BTW, the hoopster earlier referred to the term "true that" and I only wanted to credit him for being cool.

William

William, what I'm trying to say is that the pioneers, and especially Ellen White, did not create a theology ex nihilo. She gathered previous truths, separated them from error and put them within the framework of the sanctuary and the great controversy. This is true of the Sabbath, of Christ's second coming, of soul sleep, of righteousness by faith, of covenant theology, etc.
So, within a given doctrine, there are points on which we agree with other Christians, and points on which we disagree with them. Of course there are differences in our theologies, but you can't say our view is totally different from theirs in everything.

No, you're right. I would be foolish and a poor student of history to suggest otherwise. I'm certainly trying to be as objective as an "opponent" can be in interpreting both sides, which is hopefully fairly and accurately.

That said, you must admit that Ellen White took her DOA soteriology to its logical conclusion: Salvation from sin as opposed to in sin.

Ha, waiting with trembling hand for the Scholar-Baller rebuke.



William

I'm trying to quantify my observation that modern postlapsarians teach a different brand of postlapsarianism than the postlapsarians that EGW endorsed. Your inability to answer the question is revealing. Instead of saying Yes or No, you ask Why. It seems this is not as clear-cut in your mind as one would be led to believe considering your vehemence in defending your views.

Modern postlapsarians say they are upholding the 1888 teachings, claiming for themselves the positive reviews given by EGW, but I don't think a close look at the details bears that out. The quote we are looking at is one example.

The statements I have made about postlaps are based on the postlaps I have personally met, physically or online. Your assessment that my statements do not apply to Waggoner lend credence to my theory about modern postlap doctrine being different from Waggoner's version.


I wasn't asking to find out about what I should think. I wanted to find out about what you think. It would seem that my understanding of your theology might not be much more blurry than your own. It's OK. We non-postlaps find much on this topic that befuddles.

What it boils down to is that Waggoner taught a view of our fallen condition that does not apply to Jesus. He would probably be branded as a prelap by some of our more zealous postlap friends. So on that point, Waggoner and I are on the same side. Imagine that!

Kinda like Delonte West waiting for the Mamba?

OK, enough goofing around.

It's not an inability. It's a clarification for an odd question. Your response here helps me to understand. You're interested in something I wasn't discussing, which explains why I found the question odd. *I* wasn't discussing in the least your observation that modern postlapsarians teach a different brand of postlapsarianism than the postlapsarians EGW endorsed. I've been quoting very heavily from these postlapsarians. For example, I've quoted this several times:



This was a postlapsarian EGW endorsed. Do we agree that the above is true and well stated?



Again, you're being interested in something I wasn't addressing explains the odd question. You could have simply answered my question. If you ask an odd question from nowhere which doesn't flow into the conversation, am I not justified in wanting to know why you're doing this?



Again, my purpose in presenting the quote was to bring out that your generalities regarding postlapsarianism is false. You seem to have some subset in mind, which you don't quote, and of which I've had no interest and quoted nothing. I've been limiting my comments and observations to specifically the postlapsarianism that Ellen White endorsed, with the exception of pointing out that I personally know many modern postlapsarians who do not fit your characterizations.

If you wish to make some sort of case regarding modern day postlapsarians vs. those of the time of Ellen White, please go ahead and do so. Present some quotes. Make your case.

If you agree with the writings of Jones, Waggoner and Prescott, and see them as in harmony with what Ellen White wrote, that's plenty for me.



You've presented absolutely no evidence to support your position. None. Until you do, I don't think you should make negative characterizations. If you're going to make public accusations, please present evidence. That's a reasonable request, isn't it? Again, I hasten to add, defending the postlapsarians you are referencing is in no way a burden of mine, but it only seems fair to them, whoever they are, that you should present evidence when making accusations, and would make the same request if someone were doing the same in regards to prelapsarians. (I was going to say modern day prelapsarians, but that would have been redundant )



I was doing the same, and did so first. This was the point of my presenting the Waggoner quote. What I think is that your characterizations of postlapsarianism have been inaccurate and unfair.



I would that you were on Waggoner's side all the way. Waggoner was the one (along with Jones and Prescott) endorsed as having a message from God. I couldn't care less if you agree with Kilpatrick or whoever the people you know personally are.

Whidden wrote:


In all fairness and for the sake of rationality, Arnold, what you or I banter about on this fun forum, or even privately believe about a certain truth, is far less significant for the annals of history than what our denominational thought-leaders leave recorded for later generations.

I know. Not fair. But like it or not, our leading administrators and academicians (et al) have the final say-so, so to speak, on theological matters when they publish their books and leave an indelible impression upon the church. See QOD and 28 FBs. Et cetera. Nothing new.

So, sadly (or not), if Woody writes for the QODC, for example, that there's an HOC thread between Waggoner and Kirkpatrick or Jones and Priebe, well, let's just say when it's all been written, it's their word against ours (pun intended).

This is simply a historically-verifiable reality. Like it or not. Know what I mean?

William

Something big and black is going to devour that little redheaded stepchild. . . now we're done!



William

Sorry, mate. Didn't mean to make you gag by associating our new postlaps with the old!

William

Of course! Righteousness by faith must be given prominence. “The sacrifice of Christ as an atonement for sin is the great truth around which all other truths cluster.” “Christ and His righteousness--let this be our platform, the very life of our faith.” Ellen White was an extremely balanced person. The Savior must be exalted – the rest were details which would be gradually understood.


True, this is what she was trying to do. But this did not prevent her from disagreeing with Waggoner. She said, “Dr. Waggoner has spoken to us in a straightforward manner. There is precious light in what he has said.” But she also said, “Some interpretations of Scripture given by Dr. Waggoner I do not regard as correct. But I believe him to be perfectly honest in his views...” She took exception to some of the things he said, this is obvious.


She obviously disagreed with Waggoner’s view that Christ had a beginning, yet she never corrected him personally about it.


It wasn’t the cornerstone of her theology. At that historical moment what mattered, and what the Church needed, was for Christ to be exalted as the only hope of the sinner. I also don’t consider this subject the cornerstone of my theology. I see this as a peripheral issue which won’t prevent anyone from being saved. In fact, I don’t see how it’s possible to consider this fundamental for salvation and not cherish a judgmental attitude.


This is a good example. She endorsed Waggoner’s view on the law in Galatians, but Waggoner was just partially right. He was more correct than Butler, but still just partially right.

“He [Ellen White's angelic guide] stretched out his arms toward Dr. Waggoner and to you, Elder Butler, and said in substance as follows: ‘Neither have all the light upon the law, neither position is perfect.’”--Letter 21, 1888, pp. 6,7. (To G. I. Butler, October 14, 1888.) {9MR 218.1}


I disagree with what is not in harmony with what Ellen White wrote. That’s your problem. You judge Ellen White by Jones and Waggoner, when it should be the other way around. Ellen White was inspired, they weren't.


As I said previously, their perspective of things, and yours, may be totally wrong.


No. The point is that Ellen White’s endorsements considered just the general thrust of a message and did not refer to all the specific points involved in the subject. This is valid for one endorsement or for a thousand.


Of course I think the same about your arguments.

William and Arnold,

Sorry, but I didn't understand the jokes.

Don't have much time now. But here's one:
Compare with Waggoner's statement:
It doesn't match.

In a couple of months, there should be a new hit single coming out of Lala-land: Tell Me How My Bling Taste (Probably Better Than An Early Vacation In The Arizona Desert).

OK, stop it now. Back to the topic people. Stop tempting me.

It's American basketball. You're better off lacking such knowledge. And with Manu out, the people in the land of silver probably aren't very interested now.

Well, we're waiting senior player and part-time brick layer.

William

Ooohh. You're soooo bad!


OK. Was that temptation from the inside or out? Oh-yeah!

Done. Help the lady out!

William

BTW, good thing you realized they were jokes. We wouldn't want people to think that we at Maritime condone reptiles devouring unsuspecting children (who's about to find out who his daddy is).

Regarding #112101, that doesn't seem like much of a case.

I think she was saying of both Christ and Adam that they had not taint of sin upon their character. Like this:



I agree that sin taints, which has been my point. Sin taints, not nature. She never said we are tainted by having a sinful nature. I went through every reference of hers in this regard, looking specifically for how she used the word "taint" in reference to us (fallen human beings) and not one time did she use the word in any other way than having to do with sin (i.e. committing sin). So you're basing an argument on her using the term for Christ differently than she used it for us, and differently than how her colleagues used it.

I agree, because what I hold is that the "sinful nature" Christ took did not involve the moral/spiritual aspect, which is exactly the character. But I hold we are born, and Adam was created, with a character.

"God made Adam after His own character, pure and upright. There were no corrupt principles in the first Adam, no corrupt propensities or tendencies to evil." {AG 344.3}

"The human race do not stand in the righteousness of character which Adam possessed at his creation." {ST, June 11, 1894 par. 11}

So when Ellen White says,

"The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God." {13MR 18.1}

I believe she refers to his character. But you don't (or at least you didn't) believe man is born/was created with a character. Could you please clarify?

Doesn't it say, right after where you stopped, "but Jesus Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh?" So wouldn'd the thought be that while there were no corrupt principles in the first Adam, or corrupt propensities or tendencies to evil, the flesh of Jesus Christ was another matter. Isn't this what Jones, Waggoner and Prescott taught as well?

I'm not sure why you're bringing up Christ's character or "moral/spiritual" aspect, as we know that Christ's own nature was sinless (He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature). Neither Jones, nor Prescott, nor Waggoner ever asserted there was something sinful with Christ's moral or spiritual nature or character, did they?

Regarding being born with a character, none of the quotes you presented say anything about this, do they? Isn't character developed?

For example:



Again:





The mental and moral powers do not constitute character, but are the building blocks to use to build a character. As she points out, "the seed must be planted before it can become a tree."

If the mind is the seed which is planted to form character, I don't see how this would apply to a new-born infant.

Regarding the quote about Adam, I think she was saying that Adam was created with a sinless nature whereas fallen human beings have sinful natures.

maybe you meant thoughts? if the mind is the garden then it seems thoughts, good or bad, would be the seed.

This is treating Jones and Waggoner's message as if it were simply a generic message of righteousness by faith. If this were the case, there would be no sense in the endorsements Ellen White being only towards them specifically, as many SDA's preached righteousness by faith. There was something special about their message specifically. For example:



Of note:

1.It was the Lord Himself who sent this message.
2.The message the Lord sent was not merely "precious," or even "very precious," or even "most precious."



Of note here, the message of Jones and Waggoner was the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, showers from heaven of the latter rain. Ellen White never used this language for any other message than that brought by Jones and Waggoner.



I'm glad you recognize this. Hopefully you'll apply this quote more carefully in the future.



She wasn't. Her point was there were things which Waggoner presented which were different than what even she saw. She was encouraging the others to learn from Waggoner as she was:





No it's not. This is taking her comments out of context. Rather than taking sentences her and there, let's read the whole context.



This is a little before the part you quoted. She said IF she fully understood Waggoner's position, there were some things which did not harmonize with the understanding she had had on the subject. It should be easy to see this is a far cry where her saying Waggoner was wrong.



To correct Waggoner, she'd have had to know what Waggoner was teaching. Do you have any evidence that Ellen White knew of the error you are alleging? Regarding the human nature of Christ, there's no doubt she knew what Waggoner's view was, a view which she defended.



It was a cornerstone. She repeated over 400 times that Christ took our sinful nature, or fallen nature, or the nature of Adam the transgressor, or a nature degraded and defiled by sin, or similar phrases. It was one of her more frequent themes.





There are countless statements like these. This was one of her most frequent themes. She repeated these thoughts almost as often as she endorsed Jones and Waggoner!



"Just partially right." We have a consistent pattern here. You look to put Jones and Waggoner in as negative a light as possible, while I do the reverse. Ellen White did not write that Waggoner was "just partially right" but that he didn't have all the light on the subject at that time. Some time later she wrote:



I hope some day this resistance will end.



Perhaps. Perhaps not.



Do you think this is as clear as sunlight?



Regarding Jones and Waggoner, Ellen White wrote that they brought "showers from heaven of the latter rain." Of their opponents she wrote, "There were hearts full of unbelief, who did not drink in of the Spirit, but who had bitterness in their souls." It's too bad when this happens.



I can see how mine could be wrong, but I don't see how theirs could be totally wrong. How could they bring "the message of God" "showers from heaven of the latter rain" if their perspective of things was "totally wrong"? That makes no sense to me.



To make a statement like this, I can only think you're not very familiar with her endorsements of their message (which reminds me of your claim to agree with Prescott's sermon. Perhaps you make statements that are too strong in regards to subjects you don't know very well? I remember you're disagreeing with me regarding probability, asserting that is isn't true that the probability of the occurrence of an event can be expressed as a fraction or a decimal from 0 to 1.) Her endorsements of their work was specific and far-reaching. I hope we don't fall in the same path as those who opposed them previously:

The same individual who wrote this:

“As we have already seen, the great light of 1888 was that Christ was our Substitute in holy living. But Jones and Waggoner did not clarify the Pauline and Reformation insight as to how this justifying righteousness remains outside the believer.”

Wrote this:

"We may sum up the whole period in general, and the 1888 period in particular, with the following words of Mrs. White: '... justification by faith is... the third angel's message in verity.'"

In The Shaking of Adventism Paxton was dead-on with his conclusion: Jones and Waggoner new nothing of that umbrella that covers present and future sin, much to the chagrin of some "Adventists"!


I like how Daniells, our long-time GC president, summarized it in Christ Our Righteousness (pp. 52-53):

1. The message of 1888-90 was from heaven.

2. Its rejection by some of the more experienced brethren led the younger men into uncertainty and confusion.

3. Those who rejected the message, interposed themselves between the people and the light.

4. There is no excuse; the light [of justification by faith] has been plainly revealed.

5. The reason men are slow to take hold of this precious truth is that they are bound about with their own ideas.

6. The course of some has been to turn from the message to criticize the messengers.

7. Those who refuse to walk in this advancing light, will be unable to comprehend the third angel's message.

8. Those who refuse to walk in this heavenly light, that is to lighten the earth with its glory, will call it a “false light.”

9. As a result of their unbelief, important work will be left undone.

10. Solemn entreaty to those who oppose the light to “stand out of the way” of the people.

11. Such spiritual blindness causes “sadness in heaven.”

12. The positive assurance that God “raised up messengers and endued them with His Spirit.”

13. If there had been no human voice lifted to give the message, the very stones would have cried out.

14. The call to every minister is to humble the heart before God in order that spiritual strength may come to the church.

William

Touching on one of the angles of our discussion, while the origin of Adventism can be systematically traced back to leading of the Holy Spirit, the same can't be said for Augustianism.

Scholars write that Augustine was deeply rooted in the heathen philosophies of Manichaeanism.

The Manichaeans were a "Gnostic-Christians" sect and taught, among other nonbiblical things, that all matter was inherently evil.

Interestingly, they also believed that Christ's bodily manifestations were only "apparent," and that He didn't actually come in the flesh.

In other words, they denied the real incarnation of Christ because of their view of the essentially evil nature of all matter. Scripture is clear as to the spiritual source of this belief. See John.

Augustine spent nine years immersed in these traditions, leading him, obviously, to two key conclusions: 1) to regard man's nature as essentially evil and 2) human freedom as unattainable.

Augustine also succumbed to Neo-Platoism. We could go on.

Harnack put it this way:

"We have, finally, in Augustine's doctrine of sin a strong Manichaean and Gnostic element; for Augustine never wholly surmounted Manichaeism."

Newman wrote:

"Augustine, the greatest of the Latin Fathers, was for many years connected with the Manichaeans and his modes of thought were greatly affected by this experience."

All of this to say, yes, Adventism was unequivocally influenced by contemporary ideologies, but, no, our fundamental beliefs could never remain rooted in historical paganism.

And I believe it has been the Spirit of God who has dynamically led Adventism to distinguish between the two, ever moving the denomination forward in spirit and truth, and further away from philosophical delusions.

William

There are a lot of examples of this sort of thing. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

This is a blue salmon. No postlapsarian that I know of teaches that Jesus is just like "him," or what amounts to a degenerate fiend. The issue here is flesh versus character. You seem to be expressing quite a bit of anecdotal evidence and inflamed rhetoric, young man.

The best way of biblically saying it is that Jesus came from the seed of Abraham and David—took humanity's sinful flesh. So let's be fair to the opposition, eh?

Now here is how a modern postlapsarian simplistically, beautifully stated the link between Christ's flesh and the great controversy:

"Watching Christ the Son of God come down to our level, the loyal angels became completely convinced that God is love. They were persuaded that so kind and self-sacrificing a God would not even think of imposing rules and regulations that would mar anyone's happiness. They concluded His laws are for our good and most certainly should be obeyed. They also say that God's laws can be obeyed, even by members of a race weakened through thousands of years of sin." CM Maxwell (author's emphasis).

William

I forgot about CM Maxwell. I knew his son a bit (we had a class together). I met CM and had a couple of conversations with him, but no classes. A very nice man. One of the few professors at the seminary, unfortunately, who took Ellen White seriously.

Glad to have triggered some memories, mate. One last thought from Maxwell (Adventists Affirm, Vol. 12, No. 2),

"Jesus came to prove to us that Satan was wrong. He was subjected to "the fiercest temptations that human nature can know, yet He sinned not" (ST 01-16-96). By His perfect obedience Jesus "proved that humanity and divinity combined can obey every one of God's precepts" (COL 314). The Desire of Ages, p. 123, presents this striking observation: "Not even by a thought did He yield to temptation. So it may be with us" (emphasis supplied)."

I can hear my Evangelical friends crying out, "Legalism!"

Not so fast. Wrote Daniells in COR (p. 50),

Lest we miss the force of these heart-searching messages [of Righteousness By Faith], let us recount the salient points:

1. God raised up men to meet the necessity of the time.

2. Some sought to turn aside the message, and to prevent an awakening among the people.

3. Such persons were ensnared by the enemy, and gave the trumpet an uncertain sound.

4. These men declared that the law should be preached—not the righteousness of Christ.

5. The exhortation is to preach Christ in the law.

6. Some were fearful of a departure from the former manner of preaching the good old doctrines.

7. God raised up men to herald the message of Righteousness By Faith.

8. The challenge: “Will you dare to turn from, or make light of, the warnings?”

9. The Twofold result of rejecting the message.
a. Deadening of spirituality.
b. Influx of mechanical, formal profession of faith.

10. The climatic question: “Is this mournful condition of things to continue?”

End quote.

Who were the true legalists at Minneapolis? Who are they now? What, then, according to this historical record, did the messages of Jones and Waggoner actually try to counteract? . . . A Christ-less cross.

See what I mean.

William

Green, after reading some of your posts, I'm no longer sure I know what you mean by this question. I thought I knew, but am no longer positive. Maybe Priebe can sort it out for you:

"At the 1901 General Conference, Dr. Waggoner said, "Do you not see that the idea that the flesh of Jesus was not like ours (because we know ours is sinful) necessarily involves the idea of the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary?" George Knight says, "Christ's nature created no controversy in the Adventism of the 1890's. It was a generally accepted theological nonissue.". . . Why did it in the 1950's? We sought the fame of not being called a 'sect' at the expense of compromising the truth."

If not, I'll be happy to help.

William

Tom,

This was my original question:



You replied:



Which you later expanded as being “without a taint of sin in the character.”

I said the quotes refer to the moment Adam was created, and you don’t believe Adam was created with a character. You then said,



Which brings us again to the beginning. If the fact that Adam was created without a taint of sin means he was created with a sinless nature, this means that a taint of sin = a sinful nature. Is this what you mean?

was "sinful nature" defined somewhere on this thread?

No, it's not. She obviously didn’t agree with Waggoner’s view that Christ had a beginning, which he presented in 1888 (see below).


Wasn’t the book “Christ and His Righteousness” based on the stenographic notes made by Waggoner’s wife of his messages during the 1888 conference?


How many times did she say that Christ’s humanity had tendencies to sin?


There are statements in the writings of all the authors endorsed, including those of Waggoner, which clearly contradict what Ellen White said. So yes, the statement that Ellen White’s endorsements considered the general thrust of a message instead of specific points involved in the subject is valid for Jones and Waggoner, too.
It seems your memory is a little faulty. What I said was that the numbers 0 and 1 are used for theoretical purposes, but if you know without a shadow of a doubt that something will happen (1) or not (0), rigorously speaking this is not a probability, but a certainty. I even quoted this: “Probability provides a mathematical description of randomness. A phenomenon is called random if the outcome of an experiment is uncertain.”

Hi Rosa, I'm sure Tom is capable of answering for himself, obviously, but I had this quote from Paulson at the tip of my metaphoric tongue—a response that perhaps simplifies the confusion and seeming contradiction in the writings EGW:

In another statement, from the famous Baker letter, Ellen White says of Christ: "His spiritual nature was free from every taint of sin" (45). But other Ellen White statements make it clear that the spiritual nature is the same as the higher nature:

Professed followers of Christ are today eating and drinking with the drunken, while their names stand in honored church records. Intemperance benumbs the moral and spiritual powers and prepares the way for indulgence of the lower passions (46).

The faculties of the mind, as the higher powers, are to rule the kingdom of the body. The natural appetites and passions are to be brought under the control of the conscience and the spiritual affections (47).

By such misuse of the marriage relation, the animal passions are strengthened; and as these grow stronger the moral and intellectual faculties become weaker. The spiritual is overborne by the sensual (48).

The indulgence of natural appetites and passions has a controlling influence upon the nerves of the brain. The animal organs are strengthened, while the moral and spiritual are depressed (49).

Ellen White declares elsewhere, regarding Jesus: "He was born without a taint of sin, but came into the world in like manner as the human family" (50).

Many have alleged that this means He was born without the inherited sinful nature common to all humans. But at least two other statements make it clear that His being "born without a taint of sin" refers to His divine nature, not to the absence of fleshly desires in His lower, human nature:

What a sight was this for Heaven to look upon? Christ, who knew not the least taint of sin or defilement, took our nature in its deteriorated condition (51).

Though He had no taint of sin upon His character, yet He condescended to connect our fallen human nature with His divinity (52).

In other words, all Ellen White means when she says Christ was "born without a taint of sin" (53) is that He came from heaven pure. In no way does she ever imply that anyone is tainted with sin just by being born.

This point helps us clarify what Ellen White means in other statements where she says: "He (Christ) took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature" (54). The sinless nature here described refers not to His inherited human nature, but to His divine nature. This becomes clearer yet in another statement:

Sinless and exalted by nature, the Son of God consented to take the habiliments of humanity, to become one with the fallen race (55).

Other statements likewise clarify that when Ellen White says Jesus had no taint of sin, she is talking about His choices, not the human nature He took at birth:

One unsanctified act on the part of our Saviour would have marred the pattern, and He could not have been a perfect example of us; but although He was tempted in all points like as we are, He was yet without one taint of sin (56).

Christ, the second Adam, came in the likeness of sinful flesh. In man's behalf, He became subject to sorrow, to weariness, to hunger, and to thirst. He was subject to temptation, but He yielded not to sin. No taint of sin was upon Him (57).

Not one impure word escaped His lips. Never did He do a wrong action, for He was the Son of God. Although He possessed a human form, yet He was without a taint of sin (58).

See GCO for more of Paulson's conclusions. Or don't.

William

There was no agreement as to its definition.
Rarely does Ellen White apply the term "sinful nature" to Jesus. I just remember one instance of this. The term she generally uses is "fallen nature".
Non-postlapsarians defined "fallen nature" as the human nature Jesus took, but that nature didn't encompass the spiritual/moral aspect (Jesus' mind).
Postlapsarians don't seem to disagree with this, but to them sinful tendencies are part and parcel of the human nature Jesus took, because sinful tendencies are not in the mind, but in the body.

That’s the problem, William. We are discussing statements which refer to the human nature Christ took at birth:

Christ “had not taken on Him even the nature of angels, but humanity, perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin” (Ms 57, 1890).

”He humbled Himself in taking the nature of man in his fallen condition, but He did not take the taint of sin.” {20MR 324.1}

Like I said, sorry for butting in. Smiling.

William

Tom just emailed and said I could write on his behalf because he's ill. OK. I couldn't resist poking my nose in it one more time.

We really don't have a "problem" here or anywhere regarding the HOC. Alright, at least we shouldn't. Just a quick spin from a fresh perspective.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church had been clear as to what "nature Christ took at birth." Zurcher writes:

"According to Ellen White, the human nature of Christ was defined at the very beginning by the early pioneers, along with other fundamental beliefs. "After the great disappointment. . . the truth was opened point by point, and entwined with their most hallowed recollections and sympathies. The searchers after truth felt that the identification of Christ with their nature and interest was complete."

In 1872 the SDAC created A Declaration of the Fundamental Beliefs Taught and Practiced by Seventh-day Adventists:

It said, “that there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, the One by whom God created all things, and by whom they do consist; that He took on Him the nature of the seed of Abraham for the redemption of our fallen race.”

Note “nature” and “the seed of Abraham.” No room for ambiguity here, right?

This was the church's official take until 1931. How many of us even know this. Then there appeared a numbing bite in Froom's coiled QOD. Zurcher grabbed his heel and scratched his head,

"One can only be astonished at this sudden change in interpretation within the church, especially after presenting a unanimous front for a century of consistent teaching on this subject. In fact, since the beginning of the movement, the fallen nature of Christ had never been the subject of any controversy—unlike other doctrinal points, such as the divinity of Christ."

What else can we add to the record of history but to let Ellen White interpret Ellen White, just like we let Scripture interpret Scripture. There's simply too many clear statements to rely on those that often leave us bald—or prostrated in Evangelical dust:


Hope you feel better, Tommy!

William

so what would these fleshly desires be?



would it be these, since that is all i have ever seen the messenger of the Lord mention?

and what the habiliments mean below?







if we equated sin with selfish then arent we all born selfish and have to be taught to think of others? i mean we are not born automatically loving, are we?





she said He did not even by thought or feeling....this statement doesnt include that. in other words by the above definition Jesus could have sinned in thought or feeling.

thank you.

it seems to me we would get a lot farther if we defined all these things and by the bible instead of others understandings....

Well, it looks like the years we've spent talking about this topic has finally made Tom sick! Taking a break from us will surely help.


So would you say that for Jesus, "there were in him corrupt principles, tendencies to evil," in contrast to Adam?

Let's see about unfallen Adam's other characteristics: no indwelling sin, pure and upright, in His own image, faultless as the angels before the throne. Did Jesus come also "in contrast to" these characteristics?

She was careful to say, as Paul was, "the likeness of sinful flesh." The rest of us, OTOH, have actual sinful flesh. But more importantly, the contrast claimed to be made between Adam and Jesus have to do with much more than flesh, but the mind. Corrupt principles are the domain of the mind, not the body. Even Jones did not teach that Jesus had a sinful mind.

Welcome back from the dead, mate.

But I believe you missed her point, as most non-postlapsarians would.

Christ's "likeness of sinful flesh" is simply being contrasted with Adam's unfallen nature, which didn't have "indwelling sin," "corrupt principles," or "tendencies to evil."

Paulson explained it thus: indwelling sin or corrupt principles couldn't have applied to Jesus, but Christ's fallen flesh did possess tendencies to evil, otherwise this quotation doesn't present the intended contrast between Christ and Adam.

I gather you'll disagree with him, though still, in light of the clear historical record describing Ellen White and the Church's post-fall Christology, referred to in earlier posts, you'd nevertheless attempt to argue that this quotation and others are embedded with Original Sin?



Welcome back, anyway. Smiling.

William

Now let's try one that doesn't cause that baldness, and see if we can't accurately interpret Ellen White:

"It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man’s nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. BUT ["on the contrary" or "in contrast to"] Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life."

Better?

William

Tx. William, I appreciate the freshness and the statements you bring on this thread. Poor Tom, he did have a rough time and I even contributed to some part of it. Now, I do appreciate that he never did quit.

In Regards to inheritance and genetics, well that's something I did learn through college and my profession. And that's how I came in this discussion and trying to apply what Rosangela and Arnold were saying versus the law of inheritance. Initially I was incline to believe that Jesus body, genetically was not like one of us, and half of his gametes was divine, making him different than us. However, through reading more scriptures, I was impressed that I was wrong.


Law of Inheritance
The Law of inheritance is well proven today. Some inheritance(genetic expression) are more focus toward the members of your body like diseases and tendencies like to alcoholism via the liver gene. However Character, fears, habits, and immoralities are more inherited/expressed via the brain structural genes. Just because you have the "sinful or degraded" gene doesn't mean that you will automatically become an alcoholic, get the disease, be a pervert, etc... The gene always needs an outside stimuli like the environment and brain impulse(united with a spirit) to be activate or expressed.

So that's why knowing that Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit from conception or birth(it could be either like Green pointed out), then the working of the Spirit maintain Jesus sinful inclined weak gene not to be expressed in a uncontrolling manner.

Now let me explain this with an example. Every human being are equipped with the ADH(Alcohol dehydrogenase)gene in their liver. You need that gene to live, it's part of the human genome makeup. Having this gene doesn't make you a sinner. However, exercising the strength of this gene by alcohol abuse, is a sin that destroys your body gradually. I come from a family inheritance that cannot hold alcohol and if we abuse, we end up hugging the toilet. However, my husband comes from a family of alcoholism. So his ADH gene is very strong and can handle massive loads of alcohol compare to my whimpy ADH gene. Now my husband inherited a predisposition and a tendencies towards alcoholism. Christ in him, can keep his loud ADH gene voice down, and by having Jesus's will power in him, Jesus will sanctified my husband faculties to a new lines of actions. Just because a person inherited a strong ADH gene, doesn't mean that he will become an alcoholic nor does it make him one. But let say that he joined the statistics and became an alcoholic, then just like any other sins, his only hopes is having Victory in Jesus.

So for Jesus, we know that from conception or birth, and through all his life, He was in continual submission to the will of God. His brain structure inherited from birth was renewed in lines of sinless actions and in every step, Christ grew in perfection reflecting the Father's will to us. He was perfect at every step of the way, but His mind increasingly got stronger in the lines of the works of His Father, and His knowledge of the Father increased and therefore proportionately reflect more of his Character that way, both in works and in knowledge.

So yes, I agree with Ellen when she said that Jesus never had any "taint of sin" which means that Jesus never sin in any dimension despite his weak genetic inheritance.

There she is, back from the salon! Hi Elle. Indeed, Tom also was my inspiration and reason for adding my comments to this forum. That's right.

I'll comment on your other excellent ideas a bit later, Elle. Now if we can only remove that tiny abscess from the sharpshooter's frontal lobe, I'd feel alot better (as would he)!

William

The way you have worded that one, William....tricky! Of course it is not a sin to be born! However, the following statement does imply that one can be born in sin.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

These were Paulson's comments, GC. However, I do agree that "it is not a sin to be born!"

Tricky Willy

I didn't email William, and I'm not ill. I guess there was some confusion somewhere. At any rate, I appreciate the concern.

The above line was supposed to be the tail-end of the obvious. Sorry, Tom. Definitely need to be more explicit with my dryish humor, eh?

Though, glad you're feeling better! (See what I mean?) My apologies to everyone for creating any confusion. Seriously. Sorry for any disrespect, mates.

William

Both Funny and naughty! Bad William! (smiles)

Perfect pick-me-up, Elle! Thank you.

William

No, it wasn't. Here's the part I was referencing:



Just a bit later in the thread:



You made a couple of amazing statements here. "I simply disagree with your definition of probability." "Knowing the outcome either before or after the event doesn’t change the probability" "Although the concept is sometimes used, I disagree."

Or course, these are just fundamental concepts of probability. There's no "private definition" involved, nor is this a concept with which is "sometimes used" that someone can disagree with. As I pointed out (later in this thread), this would be akin to my saying "5 is an integer" and your responding "Although the concept is sometimes used, I disagree."

You've said this before, and it's been pointed out to you before that there was more than one instance. There were at least four.

I don't know why you would think this significant, however. Isn't the fact she said it once enough to establish the point? I could see how if there were something unclear in what she said, or the context of it (as with the Baker letter) why one would be interested in more than example of a phrase, but in the case of MM 181, isn't what she wrote clear?



He had a "sinless nature" of His own, and upon that sinless nature He took "our sinful nature" for the purpose of succoring those who are tempted.

At any rate, here's another use:



This brings out a number of points I've been making.

1.Christ took "out sinful nature." Therefore the nature He took is like ours, since it is ours.
2.He did so to reveal God's character.
3.He pleased not Himself (taking our nature required His not pleasing Himself).

Yes, but this book doesn't say that Christ had no beginning. It says this:



This simply affirms that Christ proceeded forth and came from God some time long ago in the past, as per Proverbs 8, not that Christ had no beginning.



To assert that Christ's humanity had tendencies to sin is imprecise. This sort of error happens a lot. Ellen White has given us counsel to be extremely careful when dealing with this subject. To assert that Christ's humanity had tendencies to sin could convey the impression that Christ sinned, which is something to be avoided at all costs. Christ took our sinful nature upon His sinless nature, and that sinful nature, like ours, had the tendencies to sin common to sinful nature (not due to one's actually sinning, of course).



If all the statements you think contradict Ellen White really did, the message God sent would have been very defective. It's really difficult to understand how such a defective message could be termed in any correct sense a "message from God" or how it could have been "showers from heaven of the latter rain."



Again, I think you could only make this statement, as well as the others I mentioned (such as agreeing with Prescott's sermon, or that knowing the outcome of an event does not impact the determination of its probability) by not having a familiarity with the subject upon which you are commenting. She didn't only endorse the "general thrust" of the message, which can be easily verified by simply reading her endorsements.

No, not for Jesus, but for His flesh.



He was like unfallen Adam in terms of being sinless, but He took the nature, or flesh, of Adam the transgressor.



So did Jesus. She made it clear that she believed this to be the case by endorsing Prescott's sermon "The Word Became Flesh" as "truth separated from error." This sermon of Prescott's asserted several dozen times that Christ came in sinful flesh.

For example:

Yes, this is exactly the point. Well put.

this is both a true trinitarian position, as well as an antitrinitarian position. one proposes that Christ has been eternally begotten, and still is being begotten, and the other that Christ was begotten at some point in time, once.

but ellen white pointed out that Christ is eternal and self-existent. she didnt endorse waggoners view of Christ, nor uriah smiths, tho she did endorse smiths daniel and revelation.

Hi Teresa. Good point. I don't think you'd find anyone to disagree with you on this. Yet we also know how difficult it is to have millions of Bible readers come to agreement on one correct interpretation for any given text.

Here's how one Bible student understands Scripture on the HOC:

Christ was “made of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Romans 1:3-4). What kind of flesh? “God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Romans 8:3). And where did Jesus condemn sin? He “condemned sin in the flesh” (Romans 8:3).

What nature did He take? “but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant [slave]” (Philippians 2:7, NIV).

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same [so that He could] deliver them who were all their lifetime subject to bondage (Hebrews 2:14-15).

Once again, what nature did Jesus take? “For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham” (Hebrews 2:17).

How much like us was He? “Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren” (Hebrews 2:18).

What does this particular nature qualify Him to do? “that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted” (Hebrews 2:17-18).

Did Christ share in my temptations and weaknesses? He “was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15).

What was the purpose of the Incarnation? The Messiah came “to make an end of sins” (Daniel 9:24). John the Baptist, at Christ’s baptism and annointing, proclaimed Him as the “Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).

William

i see no one wants to explain how they understand that. what the "clamorings of the flesh" are.

Yes, poor Tom. Sniff.

He wasn't such a bad bloke. I'll remember him well.

Dr. Zurcher didn't mince his words when it came to Adventism's new divide on the HOC:

“The choice of the devout Adventist is therefore between Questions on Doctrine and Desire of Ages, between falsehood and truth.”

What he meant, TQ, was that if you truly want to comprehend "the messenger of the Lord" on this issue, see her definitive work on the subject.

Zurcher really zinged it there, huh? Ouch.

William

How is Waggoner's position Trinitarian?



Actually Waggoner said Christ is self-existent years before Ellen White did!



Waggoner often emphasized Christ's divinity. This was essential to his teachings on righteousness by faith. However, the question of Christ's begotteness (if that's the right word) was something he rarely commented on, and not an essential point.

?? This doesn't say anything about "clamorings of the flesh".



What are you referencing?

there seems to some kind of miscommunication.

Let's put some meat on your quote and see if in an expanded context we can't clear things up:

"Christ. . . had not taken on Him even the nature of the angels, but humanity, perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin. . . Our Lord was tempted as man is tempted. He was capable of yielding to temptations, as are human beings. . . But here we must not become in our ideas common and earthly, and in our perverted ideas we must not think that the liability of Christ to yield to Satan’s temptations degraded His humanity and He possessed the same sinful, corrupt propensities as man.

"The divine nature, combined with the human, made Him capable of yielding to Satan’s temptations. Here the test to Christ was far greater than that of Adam and Eve, for Christ took our nature, fallen but not corrupted, and would not be corrupted unless He received the words of Satan in the place of the words of God. To suppose He was not capable of yielding to temptation places Him where He cannot be a perfect example for man, and the force and the power of this part of Christ’s humiliation, which is the most eventful, is no instruction or help to human beings." 16MR 182-183.

In short, what we now see being discussed is personal choice as opposed to birth nature. Yes?

As you can also see, though our birthright is linked with sinful tendencies, it isn't sinful or requires justification. Only as we choose sin, does the character become corrupt.

Much more can be said, as this is a power-packed quotation. We can pick this up tomorrow if you'd like. Running late.

William

You're not being very clear. Miscommunication about what?

Waggoner is talking about Christ's being begotten, which he relates to the time Christ proceeded from the Father, which he relates to Provers 8. I think Waggoner is correct about this. This doesn't say anything about Christ's having a beginning, but about Christ's being begotten.

Before anything was created, there was just the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Without any creation (i.e., nothing had been created) Christ could remain in the "bosom of the Father." However, once the decision was made to create, it was necessary that there be a representative, and Christ was designated as that representative. So Christ proceeded from the Father, or was "begotten."

how do your thoughts on our "birth nature" fit with these thoughts? im trying to understand what you see being born in sin means?


also, it seems there are statements that pertain only to Christ and others that pertain only to us but are being used interchangeably.

i give up.



im glad you understand that! because it has me totally lost.

Tom, this is what you said I said:



Did I say this? When? Where?

What I said, which I quoted in my post, is that “Probability provides a mathematical description of randomness. A phenomenon is called random if the outcome of an experiment is uncertain.” If something is certain to occur (1) or certain to not occur (0), this, rigorously speaking, is not a probability, but a certainty. Therefore, the numbers 0 and 1 are used only for theoretical purposes. I suppose you disagree with the definition of probability as a mathematical description of randomness.

Do we really have to begin with the A-B-C again?

"When Adam came from the Creator's hand, he bore, in his physical, mental, and spiritual nature, a likeness to his Maker." {AG 246.2}

To which aspect(s) of man's nature are you referring? To some or to all?

Yes, and this:

“But the point is that Christ is a begotten Son and not a created subject. He has by inheritance a more excellent name than the angels; He is 'a Son over His own house.' Heb. 1:4; 3:6. And since He is the only- begotten son of God, He is of the very substance and nature of God and possesses by birth all the attributes of God, for the Father was pleased that His Son should be the express image of His Person, the brightness of His glory, and filled with all the fullness of the Godhead.”


It was easy to avoid misunderstandings. She could say that Christ’s humanity had “inherited tendencies” to sin. And when she said that Christ was not “a man with the propensities of sin” she could have said He was not a man with acquired propensities of sin.


Although you want to make me seem dumb, there is a context for what I said, obviously. I was saying that there is a difference between looking at the final result and looking at the difficulty of the process. I mentioned examples, like that of Mary. If you say that Mary’s probability of getting pregnant without the participation of a male was 100%, this is misleading because you are not considering the difficulty involved in the process.


By the way, pleased to meet you.

Tom,
I’m going to repost my questions you didn’t answer.

William,

The text says that the humanity Christ took (not the humanity He developed) was perfectly identical with our own, except without the taint of sin. Do you think someone can take acts of sin (choices)?

The passage also says he took our nature, fallen but not corrupted. Do you think it makes sense to say that He took our nature, fallen but without acts of sin?

When Ellen White applies the word "corrupt" to Adam, it doesn't seem to me she refers to acts of sin:

"Adam was tempted by the enemy, and he fell. It was not indwelling sin which caused him to yield; for God made him pure and upright, in His own image. He was as faultless as the angels before the throne. There were in him no corrupt principles, no tendencies to evil." {BEcho, September 3, 1900 par. 10}

Regarding #112202, I quoted what you said in #112181.



No, not at all. Here's what I said:



You have a tendency to assert things more strongly than your familiarity with the subject matter should warrant. It's clear you're not very familiar with probability theory, yet you were arguing with me about it, making strong assertions, just as if you knew it well.

When you write things, you assert things so strongly, it's difficult to tell, from your tone, whether you know something about the subject matter you are writing about or not. I think it would be more prudent to qualify your assertions when dealing with matters you're unsure about.

Regarding #112205, Christ, like Adam, was without sin. This is how they were similar. Unlike Adam, Christ's assumed human nature was not sinless. They were different in this regards:



We, before being converted, have only one nature, a sinful one. This makes our life a life of sin. When converted, we become partakers of the divine nature, and thus have two natures, like Christ did, one human and one divine, one inherent, and the other by means of partaking of it by faith.

Christ's inherent nature was divine, not human. He was, by nature, sinless. However, the human nature He assumed was "our sinful nature." His assumed human nature was sinful, just like ours is (hence it is called "our sinful nature").

Because Christ was, of Himself, sinless and divine, and because Christ never sinned, we should be very careful in how we refer to Him and His humanity. This is precisely what I find Ellen White to be doing. She is clearly postlapsarian, but she is a careful postlapsarian. She affirms, over and over again, that Christ took "our sinful nature" (or synonymous expressions) but makes clear that Christ was sinless and divine, and never sinned. We note the same carefulness with the Bible authors.

For example, Paul doesn't simply say that Christ "became sin for us," but that "He who knew no sin" did so. Similarly Peter says no guile was found in Christ, before saying that He bore our sins in his flesh. Similarly Paul says that God sent His Son in the "likeness of sinful flesh." From Prescott, we know this really was sinful flesh, not simply flesh similar to sinful flesh but somehow different (However, Prescott was also very clear to point out that Christ was sinless).

At any rate, I think you're misinterpreting Ellen White's carefulness of expression with an affinity for Original Sin, which she couldn't have had, given her endorsements of Jones and Waggoner, and Prescott, and how she dealt with the Holy Flesh crisis (as well as her own comments on the subject, such as DA 24 and DA 49).

In fairness to Waggoner, we must remember that Seventh-day Adventists at that time believed that inclinations and tendencies to sin were not sin in the proper sense of the word. —Prefall Pfandl

Rosa and TQ, let's try something a bit fanciful, at least more stimulating to the senses, while at the same time addressing your points of interest. Surely, in the end, you will have more doubts, but your "original sin" line of questioning is historically resolvable. Here's why:

I'm going to first add just a little more contextual meat to the quotation in question, and after fattening the proverbial calf, I'll briefly divide the same quotation into three parts, prefaced only by a few comments.

(How I wish I had more time!)

This will hopefully pull our weary minds away from the typical fare of theological minutiae, while at the same time focus our attention on the documented panorama of Ellen White's Christology. . .

Manuscript 111 is written in 1890; Adventism is still reeling from the spiritual after-effects of Minneapolis. Controversies new and old continue to divide the old guard and new. But the Seer has taken a side, has seen anew.

But she is still having nightmares about what could have been through the message of the Third Angel, seeing that had leadership been receptive to the Boys of Righteousness By Faith, that winning rhetoric before Blair might not have fared so well.

Hope is still swelling in her dreams: to hear the end of the loud cry arrest the world's attention about Lucifer's unholy day.

Two years prior, at the General Conference of 1888, Ellet J. is convincingly making Christ's divinity and humanity the foundation of his "justification by faith" messages, having already listened to Ellen White depict the "humanity of the Son" as meaning everything to her, "the golden chain that binds our souls to Christ, and through Christ to God" (1SM 244).

In the same year Waggoner also publishes the tract, The Gospel in the Epistle to the Galatians, where he unabashedly emphasizes Galatians 4:4, John 1:14, and Romans 8:3, each delving into Christ's flesh. From these he concludes: "Christ was born in the likeness of sinful flesh."

Waggoner's notes are missed at Minneapolis, but shortly after, in the Signs of the Times, and as early as January 21, 1889, his first article appears, again highlighting “God manifest in flesh.”

Adventism's confirmed Christology is slowly hardening in temporary stone.

In the exact year Ellen white writes Manuscript 111, Christ and His Righteousness jumps hot off the press. And again Waggoner's doctrine of Christ leads him to justification by faith (p. 66):

"When Christ covers us with the robe of His righteousness, He does not furnish a cloak for sin, but takes the sin away. . . It actually clears him from guilt; and if he is cleared from guilt, is justified, made righteous, he has certainly undergone a radical change. He is, indeed, another person. . . 'He is a new creature' (2 Cor. 5:17)."

She silently weeps.

He is then invited to the 1891 General Conference session to present a series of 16 Bible studies on the Epistle of Romans, where he deals with the statement that God sent His only Son "in the likeness of sinful flesh."

In typical fashion, he carefully lures his listeners, "There is a common idea that this means that Christ simulated sinful flesh, that he did not take upon himself actual sinful flesh, but only what appeared to be such."

To establish the reason for Christ coming in sinful flesh, Waggoner juxtaposes Romans 8:3-4 and 2 Corinthians 5:21. In every explanation on Christ's human nature, he's faithfully connecting the incarnation of Christ—having taken man's fallen nature—with the purpose of redemption: to free us from the power of sin and death through the Spirit of life (Rom. 8:2).

During the 1890s Waggoner's influence and theological authority in the church is unparalleled. From camp meetings to pastoral conventions, from colleges to General Conference sessions, Ellen White is right there beside him, unquestionably supporting his specific teachings on Christ's fallen flesh, and proving so by accompanying both Waggoner and Jones on their Christological campaigns—on her own dime.

And O how people are being moved, she writes. They are seeing Christ in clarifying, unadulterated light—saving light. Prescott's sharp, confirming pen is shadowing the traveling trio.

The obvious question simultaneously puzzles and irritates scoffers:

If Waggoner's Christology throughout this whole decade is antagonistic to the denomination's own understanding of Christ's nature, why in the world are they continually inviting him to almost every influential gathering?

Heads are scratched, hearts are shut closed, and the skepticism persists:

If Waggoner's view is controversial or even unorthodox, why ask him to the General Conference Committee session in 1901 to refute “the strange doctrine” of the holy flesh movement, and their heretical teaching that Christ has taken "the nature of Adam before the fall"?

It is impossible, 19th century historians assure us, to divorce Ellen White from her immediate community of faith. Impossible.

So it is in this very unambiguous milieu that we find Ellen White reiterating her Christology in 1890:

1. She ecstatically echoes the commonly-held view of Adventist Christology:

"Christ. . . had not taken on Him even the nature of the angels, but humanity, perfectly identical with our own nature, except without the taint of sin."

2. For those having any difficulty understanding a view that differs so widely from mainline Protestant churches, the prophetess adds a cautioning specification.

"But here we must not become in our ideas common and earthly, and in our perverted ideas we must not think that the liability of Christ to yield to Satan’s temptations degraded His humanity and He possessed the same sinful, corrupt propensities as man."

3. Then comes her conclusive appeal, showing that if Jesus had lived a sinless life in a human nature different from ours, and if He had not been "made like his brothers in every way" (Heb. 2:17), He would not be "able to help those who are being tempted" (Heb. 2:18).

"The divine nature, combined with the human, made Him capable of yielding to Satan's temptations. Here the test to Christ was far greater than that of Adam and Eve, for Christ took our nature, fallen but not corrupted, and would not be corrupted unless He received the words of Satan in the place of the words of God. To suppose He was not capable of yielding to temptation places Him where He cannot be a perfect example for man, and the force and the power of this part of Christ's humiliation, which is the most eventful, is no instruction or help to human beings."

A Happy Sabbath to all. Until next week,

William

Does this describe what you have in mind when you speak of "the nature of Adam after the Fall"? Is this dual nature - divine and human - what Adam had after his fall?

What I'm hearing from postlaps today is that Jesus had "the same sinful, corrupt propensities as man." Otherwise, how could He have experienced the same struggles that we do, since we struggle against these sinful, corrupt propensities?

Are you saying that Jesus DID NOT have "the same sinful, corrupt propensities as man"?

After Adam's fall, after he was converted, of course, like any other believer he had his own sinful nature and was a partaker of the divine nature by faith.

you all read too many he said/she said!! makes communication most difficult, not to mention the assumptions made of what another believes. must be an adventist thing!

im asking what you understand these fleshly desires to be, or as another has put it the clamorings of the flesh. you see, id rather not make assumptions of what you believe or what you mean by such and such but ask you.

now what "zurcher" said or tom, dick or harry, does not really help me know what you understand them to have understood.

kind of reminds one of that circle where one person whispers something to the next person and by the time it gets back to the first person it has no resemblance to what was originally said.

william, i do not know what roseangela believes but i can assure you that you have preconceived assumptions of what i believe.

Hi all, I'm in the moving mode again, and I don't know how many days it will be before they install a telephone line in my new house and I have internet access again. Until then, I hope you have a good discussion.

Tom,

You do not see the logic of this as I see it. If you saw this issue through my eyes, you would understand why I see the logic as flawed. I am sure that to you this logic is perfectly good. To me, however, you are reasoning in a circle.

To be "a partaker of the divine nature by faith" means what? What does "faith" mean? "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." In other words, you are essentially saying that our divine nature is a vicarious one. It is not, nor can it be, ours except through the vicarious life of Christ as accepted in faith.

I could say more about this "vicarious nature," but for now I will leave it at that.

Also, you have said the following: "Regarding #112205, Christ, like Adam, was without sin. This is how they were similar. Unlike Adam, Christ's assumed human nature was not sinless."

In other words, let us simplify this equation as we would do in an algebra class, to see what the variable equals.

1. Christ's assumed human nature was not sinless
2. Christ's assumed human nature was sinful
3. Christ's human nature was sinful
4. Christ's nature was sinful
5. Christ was sinful
6. Christ sinned
7. FAILURE ......!

Now that doesn't add up.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Are you familiar with Jones and Waggoner? If so, I'm speaking in the sense that they preached. Here's an example from Waggoner:

Your errors are from steps 2 to 3, and steps 3 to 4.

First of all, I was very careful in how I worded things. You're not being as careful. The SOP tells us Christ took upon His sinless nature "our sinful nature." So "His" nature was "sinless." He took "our sinful nature" upon that sinless nature.

Saying His "human nature" is an error of clarity. But the really egregious error is from step 3 to step 4. Christ's nature was "sinless." Christ took "our sinful nature" upon what? Upon "His sinless nature." So what is His nature? Sinless.

You're attempted "proof" reminds me of the following:

a = b
a^2 = a*b
a^2-b^2 = a*b-b^2
(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)
(a+b) = b
a+a = a
2a = a
2 = 1

Tom,

There are no errors in that which I can see. Since you say there are errors, let me ask you two questions:

1) When you say "Christ's assumed human nature," do you mean that this nature was NOT Christ's?
2) When you say "Christ's human nature" differs from "Christ's nature," are you saying that Christ was NOT human?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I'll go over the errors again, with a bit more detail. The first error was to go from Christ's assumed human nature to Christ's human nature without qualifying the meaning. I was very careful with my expression, to make clear what I was referring to, which is "our sinful nature" which Christ took upon "His sinless nature."

The word "nature" can be ambiguous, as, depending on the context, it can mean different things. Hence my carefulness.

Now when you go from "Christ's assumed human nature" to "Christ's human nature" you're in danger of being misunderstood. You need to be very clear what specifically you're talking about. Are you talking about the "our sinful nature" which Christ took upon "His sinless nature"? Or are you talking about something else?

Going from Christ's human nature to Christ's nature is not simply an error of clarity, but is a mistake. "Christ's nature" must be understood as "His sinless nature."



This should be clear. "His sinless nature" is Christ's nature. "Our sinful nature" is Christ's assumed human nature.



It's "our sinful nature" from the MM 181 quote.



I didn't say it differed. I said the expression is not as clear as the one I used. It's liable to be misunderstood. It can mean different things depending on the context. The expression I used, "Christ's assumed human nature," is clear (It's the "our sinful nature" from the MM 181 quote).

Again, Tom, you are not making logical sense.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either "Christ's human nature" was sinful or it was not. If, as you seem to be saying, it was sinful, but that it was "our nature" and NOT Christ's nature, then you are not talking about Christ, but about us. I think you are making a mistake. Christ never took "SIN" upon Himself until the cross, when the weight of our sins rested upon Him, the innocent Lamb.

Christ's nature was never sinful. Period. End of story.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, Ellen White wrote:



Christ took "our sinful nature" upon "His sinless nature."

Christ had a nature of His own, which was sinless (as well as divine). Christ took upon that nature, "our sinful nature," which is neither human nor sinless.

As I've pointed out, the word "nature" can be ambiguous. So I used the expression "Christ's assumed human nature" to make clear what I'm referring to, which is the "our sinful nature" of the MM 181 quote.

Regarding this assertion



I asked before if you're familiar with Jones and Waggoner's teachings. I don't know that you responded.

Here's something from Waggoner which discusses this:



Here's the thought explained in more detail:



From the SOP:



This is speaking of Christ's temptation in the wilderness. Notice she says that Christ was "burdened with the sins of the world." So it's not the case that Christ never took sin upon Him until the cross.

You can see from Matthew as well (who Waggoner quoted; Matthew 8:17) that he applied Isa. 53, the innocent lamb reference, before the cross.



Yes, Christ's nature was never sinful. It was sinless. But it's not the end of the story! It looks like you're missing the second part:



That is, the "our sinful nature" part.

Tom,

Have you heard the parable of the Cave and the Sun? (Not sure what it's called...one of Aesop's I think.) Anyhow, this reminds me of that.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Are you absolutely sure I haven't understood your argumentation without resorting to "preconceived assumptions"?


Admittedly, TQ, you perhaps have not come fully out of the closet (like someone else I know), yet it's obvious your queries stem from a typical prelapsarian mentality. So it is from your own commentary that I have formed my conclusion.

Furthermore, Rosa has been rather explicit with us by honestly sharing her proclivities for Original Sin. So, IMO, you by now should know "what Rosangela believes."

BTW, hurry back Rosa and be safe!

William

Teresa, utilizing the supporting thoughts of others is only done so that there aren't any preconceived assumptions as to what one believes. Students understand that using primary, secondary, or tertiary sources is necessary if you want to successfully argue your premise.


First you mentioned that we could more easily clarify this issue were we to stay with the Bible. OK. So I gave you a list of texts supporting Christ's postfall nature. Silence.

I thought: OK, she's tired. Now you insist on having my opinion when I already gave you the Bible's opinion. In truth, TQ, I've already articulated in several places what I believe "sinful flesh" represents (i.e., "fleshly desires," "clamorings," etc.): these do not produce guilt until we act upon them. Sin as choice is typical postlapsarian fare.


It should. How else do we categorize our doctrinal beliefs if we don't align them with the teachings of those before us? Most of us simply don't have the time to articulate every doctrinal nuance in this quick-hit format, so we quote theological "experts" to save time while still sharing our faith.


Not an ideal analogy. Because in quoting other biblically-faithful sources, if the Bible is whisper number one, the whispers between persons 2-5, for example, will get louder and clearer not less loud and clear, especially because Adventism has a modern prophet at number two, and two Spirit-ordained "messengers" at numbers three and four.

Theoretically speaking, want to guess who number five is?

William

Hi Arnold: This is one of the more common quotations used by those in the New Theology camp. But I'm sure you didn't know that, right? Smiling.

I'm not saying anything, actually, Ellen White says it for us in the very next paragraph: "Christ took our nature, fallen but not corrupted, and would not be corrupted unless He received the words of Satan in place of the words of God.

I've already highlighted this point elsewhere. However, doubtless you're familiar with Paulson's higher/lower nature treatise:

"So what does she mean when she says Jesus never had the same corrupt propensities we have? Simple. She means He never chose to sin, and thus never acquired a taste for sin. Notice she doesn't say His nature wouldn't be corrupted unless He was born with the same fallen nature other humans are born with. Rather, the corruption here described would occur only if He received the words of Satan in place of the words of God. Choice, not birth, is the source of the corruption here described."

The Spirit of Prophecy cannot be more clear, nor ever contradicts Himself:

"Think of Christ's humiliation. He took upon Himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin." 4SDABC 1147.

The "degraded and defiled" would be his lower nature, if subscribing to Paulson's categorization, but Jesus' higher nature couldn't be degraded, since this is where His choices were made.

Ellen White could not have taught "original sin," or its more sanitized version involuntary sin, and still prophetically endorse Jones and Waggoner, as I quickly showed to in my, um, fanciful column.


William

For the record, we have a telling statement from Pastor Kirkpatrick regarding the reasons for the extremely subtle ignoring of Jones and Waggoner by those holding to every form of Original Sin.

"Similarly to the point concerning the New Theology and 1844, when it comes to the question of 1888, two tracks are taken by New Theology people that demonstrate its core antagonism to Adventism. The following concerns are, however, more difficult to clearly prove because few New Theology advocates openly discuss 1888 in any depth. . .

"Unfortunately, the New Theology advocates take one of two approaches to 1888: They either (a) Try to pitch the idea that we just don’t know what 1888 was about anyway and so there is nothing to be done about it but to move forward in ignorance, or (b) They teach that what 1888 was about was the reassertion of the same gospel understanding as they declare was held by Martin Luther."

William

my point exactly. based on comments i have made you have decided you know where i am coming from. so you have given me "history" lessons based on your understanding instead of answering my questions. history lessons based on "this person said", "that person said" i might add. why would i base my beliefs on what others say, when i can just go to the bible and sop? it appears that since i havent come to the conclusions you have you have decided that i was wrong and needed correcting, without touching on the points i am trying to clarify.




if i knew what the "original sin" doctrine was i could say i knew what roseangela believes. i have on rare occasions heard the term but do not know what it stands for. what i am picking up from these discussions seems to be saying that babies are born sinless until they actually "commit" a sin, some vague, undefined sin.

from my understanding a prelapse does not believe that we are to, and can, overcome all sin. is this your conclusion of me? would you admit to it?

so it boils down to, you did not understand my question. glad to have that cleared up.

my question seemed pretty clearly stated to me. apparently not to others. not sure if i can clarify it any more. is it possible that "fleshly desires," "clamorings," are just undefined words? do those using them have clear ideas, or vague ideas as to what they mean?

im not aware of anyone responding to this post #112163. if i am not coming across clearly im at a complete loss as to how to get clearer.

i have a vague idea what that is about since i was in someones class who was teaching those things and ended up walking out. he had quite a bit to say about the ignorance of the pioneers.

i have an idea. instead of assuming someone believes these things because they dont see eye-to-eye with you, why not ask if they believe that?

we might have a real discussion with real people instead of having a discussion with our preconceptions of what those people are saying. but thats just an idea. after all, what would i know.

This is in response to post #112163. I didn't understand the last couple of things you said in that post, so I skipped it.



The desires spoken of in James 1:15, where it says that every man is tempted when drawn of his own desires and enticed. A. T. Jones speaks of this here:





No. Limiting it to only this would make a number of her statements not make sense. For example:



The SOP tells us our most difficult temptations are from within:



Since if we had to endure any trial or temptation that Christ did not face, Satan would present the power of God as insufficient for us on that point, and since our most difficult temptations are from within, it must be that Christ endured these.



It would be absurd to interpret the history of Christ's earthly ancestors as dealing with things like hunger. He came with such a heredity as we have to share in our sorrow and temptations. Surely our sorrows and temptations are not limited to things like hunger.



We're not born God. God is agape. In order to reveal God to us, Christ came to our world. That we might better understand the revelation, Christ took our fallen nature upon His sinless nature.

thank you for answering, tho im still at the same place i was before. ill just have to stick with the conclusions im coming to.

i would like to point out that the difference, big difference, between Jesus and us is that we have given into temptation, from infancy, even birth. He did not have to battle indulged sins. so He didnt have to battle everything we have to battle. so, other than being completely human, He is not just like us. so, for me, it doesnt really matter whether He came with prefall or postfall humanity.

as for suffering hunger, for example, i can see where that could be a big comfort for those who are hungry and dying of starvation, since He also suffered that without giving into temptation to relieve it. so we have no excuse for sinning no matter what we are going through and i see that as the bible and the messenger of the Lords points.

if adam and eve had not sinned their children would not have been born "in sin", or automatically sinning, giving into temptation. they would not have been born selfish.

Well, I don't know to what extent you can say a new born is "tempted" (can one be tempted from the womb? how about zygotes?), but certainly that Jesus Christ did not sin is a big difference.

I think you may be operating under a misconception. Postlapsarianism is not about Jesus being the same as us (if He weren't any different than us, He could be our Savior, and if we were any different from Him, we wouldn't need one), but about His taking our sinful nature upon His sinless nature. In Christ were united the natures of God and Adam the transgressor.



This isn't right. If you look at the Psalms, you can see His battles were like us. Take a look at Psalm 40, for example:



A. T. Jones spoke of this concept a lot in the 1895 GCB sermons. E. J. Waggoner as well. Christ didn't simply take our nature, but He bore our sin as well, and not just on the cross, but throughout His whole life. You'll notice that the SOP tells us that it was Christ's bearing our sins that made His temptations so difficult (in the wilderness, I quoted this just a few posts ago).

Also, if you'll look at the DA 24 quote, you'll see it clearly affirmed that Christ endured every trial that we have to endure.



It does matter, although you may not be aware as to why. But, again, it looks like you're suffering under a misconception because you keep speaking of Jesus not being like us.



But hunger is just a minor part of the sorrows and temptations we have. Remember that Christ took our fallen nature to share in our sorrows and temptations (as well as to reveal the Father to us).



That's true. Such is our nature. We may rejoice that Christ took that nature, overcame in that nature, and thus provided the way by which we may have victory in said nature.

TQ, it would help in our discussion if we knew more of what you actually believed about whether Christ desired and lusted to sin, then the issue of assumptions might dissipate.

You asking only questions is fine, of course, but articulating your own set of beliefs in a clear manner would enable a more successful debate on the merits of the three identified groups: postfall, prefall, and synthetic (a combination of the two).


This is certainly a reasonable observation. But to be fair, I don't believe I have based my comments about someone's position because of disagreement but because of information.

For example: if Arnold says he's non-postfall; agrees he's not prefall; disagrees with postfall Tom; argues against postfall theology; harmonizes with Whidden; disharmonizes with Kirkpatrick; et cetera; then, can't I correctly conclude, based on this information alone, that he's a synthetic?

(Sorry for taking your venerable name in vain, mate!)

Now, you're absolutely right, TQ, I could "ask if they believe that." And maybe you bring up a good point here, one worth seriously considering. Nevertheless, mum always taught us foolish boys to ever revere that ancient Chinese proverb found in the Tao Te Ching:

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. . .

(Kidding, Elle!)

William

My apologizes if I've been less than clear myself, TQ. I'll try a little harder to correctly discern your ideas.

Oh, BTW, what I write is not only a reply to those commenting on this thread, as this may be only a minor motivation, but the greater impulse in sharing these reinforcing snippets extends across invisible lines to the lurking undecided and those desperately needing encouragement for Adventism's foundations.

William

More on the subtle pitfalls of Andreasen's so-called "new theology" from LK:

"But Jesus laid aside the powers which were His by right as God; He remained God still; but He came to our world and did much more than take a skin graft or a heart valve from broken humanity; He became as human as we are. He entered into the experience of men who face life every day in sinful flesh, in a flesh that clamors and pulls and provokes to selfishness. He took not just flesh, but He became a whole human person—a whole, fallen-fleshed human person. He defeated sin on the same battlefield as sin must be defeated in my life and in yours.

"But the New Theology always opts for some other position than this. Jesus takes part of our humanity but not all of it. The New Theology will always present Christ’s nature as being like Adam’s before the Fall, or partly like Adam’s and partly like ours, a synthetic blend, a plastic Jesus, an imaginary and malleable God-man to whom few Joe-average humans like ourselves can relate. The key position which the New Theology inevitably battles, is that Jesus took the humanity of a whole, after-the-Fall human being."

William

I see your behaving yourself William. Good!

Is it Andreasen that wrote this quote? So he believed that Jesus laid behind his divine powers? Do yo believe this also? And who else writes about this? I understand that our pioneers were postfall, however, did they believe that Jesus laid his power behind too? Phil 2:6-8

BTW. I have ducks and they don't quack like ducks

i guess adam was not completely human before he fell according to this reasoning. once adam fell he became a "whole human person".

but at least i got a definition for that "clamoring" used so often, one that i can understand: "in a flesh that clamors and pulls and provokes to selfishness".

Whoops. Thanks, Elle. Andreasen apparently coined the term "new theology," while Pastor Kirkpatrick wrote the quote in question.


Ha, brilliant. Mr. Thomas has me a short leash. Did you see that he recently made a funny, graphics and all?!


Good point, young lady. Let me think on it a bit before answering, because I'm tired of misunderstanding things, if you know what I mean.

William

Hi TQ, yeah, I see where that can be a bit confusing.


There it is, and hey, who said miracles don't happen, huh? Smiling.

William

i can understand your motivation, but i believe that if people want to know what the pioneers taught and what our theology is they should go read them-the pioneers and egw-and not, i stress not, read anyones "history" of that. no matter how sincer the person may be giving any history it is, in the long run, based on their understanding of what was believed, and sometimes not an honest presentation of facts. at least not as i have discovered in checking what is said they said or believed against what they actually said and taught.

and thank you. i would appreciate that. you may still disagree with my conclusions and feel the need to "correct" me, but at least, hopefully, it will be what i think that you are dealing with, and not someones elses accusations of what is being said.

True, good point on the first paragraph. And thanks, I hear you, on the second.

William

and i like the definition. it puts everything in perspective. ill stop there and save the objections to the other for another time since we are getting along so nicely now.

Oh, Tom made a joke? I think I didn't see this; which page?

Check out #112192, Elle. . . Whoops, p. 109.

William

Oooohhhh! Poor Tommy is having a good cry! Don't cry Tom you have a friend. Maybe two

Good one Tom! Thanks for bringing it to my attention Will, I had missed it.

Tom, could you expand what Waggoner or others believe regarding Christ was in the "bosom" of the Father. Like part of the Father's form? Like something Eve was part of Adam, made from his rib?

Would this fact that Christ is "begotten" have anything to do that his divinity powers like Omni presence, omniscience, omnipotent and immortality was able to be taken from Him before the re-incarnation and given back to Him at the ressurection?

Who knew he, too, could tap into the estrogen?!

FYI, yes it was indeed Andreasen who coined the term:

"The term "New Theology" was used by [Pastor] M. L. Andreasen in 1959 in his Letters to the Churches which he wrote in response to the publication of the book Questions on Doctrine in 1957" (Pfandl).

BTW, the approving thumb was for TQ.

William

I mostly agree with this. Actually, I don't see the problem with reading the history of another so much as not reading the original sources. I certainly agree that there can be a wide discrepancy between what someone purports to have been said and what was actually said.

Theresa, since we've been talking about history, here's something I don't understand regarding the prelapsarian position. Supposedly the entire church was postlapsarian, except Ellen White. However, she endorsed postlapsarians, endorsed postlapsarian theology, and never corrected postlapsarians publicly. What I really, really don't understand is the idea that she supposed corrected Baker privately on the same subject she was publicly endorsing postlapsarians on.

Another thing regarding this that doesn't make sense to me is supposedly no one understood her correctly until 40 years after she died, although she was living when discussions on this actual topic were going on! (e.g. the Holy Flesh controversy) If she really agreed with the Holy Flesh people, like Donnel and Davis, that Christ's humanity is as Donnel and Davis said it was (which is the same position prelapsarians today have), I just cannot fathom that nobody during the time would be aware of this. This just boggles the mind.

Let's not worry about what I will attempt to argue. You probably have no idea what that will be, since I have no idea what that will be. But let's look at what you, and Paulson, just said.

There are 3 items in the quote: "indwelling sin," "corrupt principles," or "tendencies to evil." You say that unfallen Adam did not have any of them. I agree.

I say that fallen Adam had all three. Do you agree?

Assuming we agree there, let's consider the claim that "indwelling sin or corrupt principles couldn't have applied to Jesus, but Christ's fallen flesh did possess tendencies to evil." That means that out of the 3 characteristics, Jesus was like unfallen Adam in 2 of them, and like fallen Adam in 1. Do you agree with that?

I don't know. Is it?

Does this quote tell us that Christ's problem was more than just the flesh, but the mind? Did Jesus have the mind of fallen man?

It's 2 for 2 (i.e. there were two things which unfallen didn't have, but Christ's flesh had).



PTI, as I know you're responding to William, but what's the motivation for this question? Of course this isn't dealing with the mind of Christ. Christ had the "mind of Christ," not the mind of fallen man. As A. T. Jones explained, "Don't drag His mind into it. He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, not in the likeness of sinful mind."

The quote tells us that Christ took such a heredity as we have to share in our sorrows and temptations. Surely our sorrows and temptations have to do with more than simply getting hungry or tired.

I'm also interested in your response to my observations regarding the unlikelihood of Ellen White alone being a postlapsarian as well as knowing being able to understand her until 40 years after she died (see post #112340)

im not privy to the "histories" you have read, so i cant respond.

as for the "holy flesh" youve referred to all i know is what egw has said, and again have not been privy to any "histories" of that event.



in her references to that movement i havent seen where prefall/postfall nature comes into it, or ever had anything to do with what was going on. what i understand her to be saying is these people believed they could somehow arrive at "holy flesh" which can only happen at the second coming. that movement seems quite similar to the "holy spirit" thing going on nowadays.

This is public knowledge. Those disagreeing with the postlapsarian position agree with the facts I've presented; these aren't in dispute. The dispute has been over the viability of Ellen White's being the lone prelapsarian of the church.



The knowledge is in the public domain. I've been asserting the whole time that the viewpoint you've been presenting is not a viable alternative and giving reasons why. As Ellen White points out, the truth has nothing to fear from investigation.

It's a matter of public record what Donnel believed. I've quoted this several times. It's also a matter of public record how Haskell responded, which I've quoted several times. I've given the sources. It's public record that our church responded by publishing postlapsarian articles for several months, and presented postlapsarian sermons at the General Conference session.

So you could respond if you wanted to. You have enough information.

You could also respond hypothetically on the basis of what was presented being true. That is, assuming these things were true, without admitting them to be, what would be your response to these questions? Is it really feasible that Ellen White, in your opinion, would have acted the way that she did?

Ah, there he is! But before compiling the surrounding context for what was a rephrasing of Paulson, and then forming my response, I'm far more curious and interested to see an original-sin hypothesis than I am to deconstruct the good pastor. Make sense? So, um, take your best shot. . . But, hey, where's your basketball?!

William

And let's not forget that Donnell and Davis actually confessed to their error in front of about 300 delegates at the conference committee of the Indiana churches. Donnell, of course, was later reinstated after both were summarily defrocked.

But Davis continued to believe in Christ's prefall nature—confirmed later by Hankins' eight questions—and adhered to a theological argument that had insisted that "Christ took Adam's nature before the fall," just as Haskell had warned Ellen White.

When will we learn? Sigh.

William

If I'm understanding you correctly, Elle, my answer would be, "Yes," Jesus laid aside His divine powers in order to embody an exemplary life for us to pattern. I would have to check to see what our forefathers believed, however.

William

"In itself the act of consenting to be a man would be no act of humiliation were it not for the fact of Christ's exalted preexistence, and the fallen condition of man. But when we open our understanding to realize that in taking humanity upon Him, Christ laid aside His royal robe, His kingly crown, His high command, and clothed His divinity with humanity, that He might meet man where he was, and bring to the human family moral power to become the sons and daughters of God." {17MR 25.1}

"The heavenly universe were amazed at such patience, such inexpressible love. To save fallen humanity, the Son of God took humanity upon Him, laying aside His kingly crown and royal robe. He became poor, that we through His poverty might be made rich. One with God, He alone was capable of accomplishing this work, and He consented to an actual union with man. In His sinlessness, He could bear every transgression." {17MR 26.2}

William

To make sure we understand each other, do you mean by "divine powers" that Christ was stripped of his omni-potence, omniscience, omni-presence and immortality before the reincarnation? He came on earth devoided of these powers? If so, yes it would be great to know if the pioneers believed this also.

To me this quiescence explanation does not cut it out. You can't die if you possess immortality. It just doesn't work that way. It would defile a law of nature.

I didn't consider this angle when I posted the two quotes by EGW, and haven't given it much thought. It appears there were two options for Him: divesting Himself of these three elements before the incarnation or completely subjugating them after the incarnation.

Either way, what I am certain is this: He didn't utilize of any of these "powers" to overcome sin in fallen flesh or else Satan would have cried, "Foul!"

William

I would appreciate if you give it some thoughts and prayers, Will. I have no problem seeing that it's possible for the other three powers to be "subjugating" however, the immortality just doesn't work. He had to be mortal like a man to die. And I don't buy that he had both, immortality and mortality, at the same time.

Tommy didn't answer my question in regards to the meaning of
"begotten" and being in the "bosom" of the father. I think this truth shed light into this. Since Jesus was begotten from the Father, these where given to him at the beginning of creation, and was able to be taken from him at the reincarnation, and given back to him at the resurrection. However, I'm just starting to search scriptures on these.

Absolutely, Elle. And I do see a potential conundrum here, one that already has me pulling my locks.

William

Elle, do you buy that Christ was both divine and human at the same time? As God, He couldn't die, but as man, He could. This would be similar to saying that as God, He could not be tempted, but as man, He could be. Would you disagree with this as well?

I buy what the Bible tells me. The Bible says Jesus was the Son of God, the only begotten Son of God. I don't buy anymore that he had immortality, omni-presence, etc... The Bible does not say that. As far as I read scripture, Jesus had to rely 100% on the father. Through the father, he had insight, power, etc.. just like we can have insight, power throught Jesus. And Jesus died a man's death.

I don't know, about "Jesus as God, he could not be tempted". Is there any scripture that says that?

Have you studied about what scriptures reveals versus Jesus being "begotten"? What does it mean that Jesus was in the Bossom of the Father before creation?

Anyway this is off topic, and should move to the "Immortality and Jesus death..." thread if there's something significant that can be added.

so where is this "public domain"? who do i have to read in order to get this information?



just did.

shouldnt make assumptions of another. its not nice. it is in essence calling me a liar and accusing me of playing games.
someone else did something similar to me because i wouldnt believe some trinity definition he made up and insisted it should be believed. not nice. the ninth commandment comes to mind.

by the way, i understand the vatican library is online now. i havent read it either. there is quite a bit i havent come across or read.



why on earth would i do that?

Perhaps. Perhaps not. We all intend to buy what the Bible tells us, but we have differences of opinion, so clearly we're not all doing so. Actually, I'm quite certain that none of us really buys what the Bible tells us, in terms of our beliefs being 100% in harmony with Scripture.



Of course He wasn't omnipresent, but the Bible certainly says He was immortal. Jesus said, "I am the life and the resurrection." It's hard to see how one could understand this saying of Christ's in such a way that did not involve His being immortal.



He had to rely upon the Father to be an example for us, to meet the lies of the enemy, and to reveal God to us in a way that would be meaningful to us, but He could have overcome in His own right had He chosen to do so. Christ is the creator. Surely One who created the Universe is not limited in power. (I'm assuming you agree that Scripture teaches that Christ is the Creator. If not, we can discuss this point.)



James 1 says that God cannot be tempted. Hebrews 4:15 says that Christ was tempted as we are tempted. So if Jesus is both God and man, it would follow that as God He could not be tempted, but as man He could be.



There's not a lot in Scripture about this. Mostly things John wrote, and Proverbs 8 come to mind. Here's what I think makes sense.

Before creating sentient beings, there was no need for God (i.e. the Godhead) to have a representative. Once God decided to create, it was necessary for there to be a representative for God for these creatures. Christ was the One designated to do this work. He would represent the Father to the Universe. For angels, He was "Michael, the archangel." Had man not sinned, perhaps He would have remained in this role.

At any rate, I understand that "in the bosom of the Father" is referring to the relationship Jesus had with the Father before creation. Since we are creatures of space-time, and before creation neither space nor time had been created, it's not possible for us to conceptualize what this existence would have been like, so I think Jesus used an expression that we could relate to in some intuitive way to describe it.

I think Christ's being begotten is dealing with the time when He proceeded from the Father in His role as representative for the beings that would be created.

Hi TQ: I believe the term "public domain" is referencing the information available to the public at large. For example, regular folk like you and I have easy access to the internet, an online library, a bookstore, the courthouse, and so on. Hope that helped.

William

Arnold: I perhaps shouldn't have been so aggressive, chap, and maybe I put you on the defensive with my reference to original sin. I'm actually intrigued to see what you/we conclude on the quotation's interpretation, even though I believe I have a firm hold on its meaning and application.

That said, analyzing theological minutiae is obviously your talent and Tom's (et al), which is why I've so enjoyed these discussions. As I've previously alluded to, I actually detest devilish details, and will only dissect things when forced to.

Again, hope I didn't come across too overbearing, thus putting you on the defensive. I'm sure you'll let us know what you discover at your convenience.

William

i should have been more clear i guess since i know what public domain means, such as "the vatican library is online, for instance" which would mean anyone can access it now. where in the public domain is said info that it was assumed i already knew.

You could find a lot of things with Google.

http://www.adventistarchives.org/doc_info.asp?DocID=30 is a site to look for.

http://www.crcbermuda.com/bible/righteousness-by-faith is another site to look through.

thank you. yes, i have already come across this by bert haloviak. i havent read what he has to say, tho. how do i know he is not biased and trying to get me to come to some conclusion?



i already know how to find jones and waggoner.

anyway, somehow weve gotten offtrack, yet again. several times it has gotten offtrack from my original question. my original question was on page 107 #112156 and has gone in strange directions for such a simple question.

teresa, the first site I referenced is General Conference archives. They have documents by all sorts of people in the church, including virtually everyone that has been mentioned in this thread. I don't know why you would mention Bert Haloviak. Oh, I see, that's the article that came up. That was just by chance. I was just giving you a reference to the site. You asked where you could find things in public domain, and that's one place.

Regarding Jones and Waggoner, you asked for help. I have no idea what you already know how to find or not. You seem not to be familiar with what they wrote, so I cited a place for you to find their writings. Many of the issues you bring up they dealt with. They were strongly endorsed by the prophet the Lord sent us, and we are told many times the message they brought was from God, so we can trust they weren't biased.

You can find the sermon "The Word Became Flesh" by W. W. Prescott by googling, which was specifically endorsed by Ellen White.



Where? I didn't see the response. For convenience, I'll repeat my question. Supposedly, Ellen White was the only non-postlapsarian in the church (discounting the Holy Flesh people). Even though there was a controversy (the Holy Flesh controversy) which dealt with the point of Christ's fallen nature, supposedly no one knew that Ellen White secretly agreed with those on the Holy Flesh side and disagreed with the SDA's who were fighting against them. Suppsedly Ellen White correctly Baker on the very issue she was endorsing W. W. Prescott on. None of this make senses to me. Does it make sense to you?



??? You'll have to explain yourself here. I've got no idea of where you're coming from. What unkind assumption am I making? I asked you a question, which you responded by saying you weren't privy to the information needed to respond. I pointed out the information is online, so if you wanted to respond, you could, because the information is available to you. I don't understand what you think is unkind about this response, or what unkind assumption you think I'm making.



teresa, I can only guess that you took something I said the wrong way. I can't think of anything I said which would be deserving of such a response. I'm sorry I said something which apparently rubbed you the wrong way.

This thread has, a long time ago, because a general purpose thread dealing with Christ's human nature. I'm not understanding why you think the thread has gone off track, as we're still dealing with this topic. Yes, you asked a question on page #107, but many other people have made points and asked questions since then. I don't understand why you would think your single question has been what's been driving the thread since then. A lot of questions have come up.

Bump.


Arnold, I also believe that in most cases people experience rebirth before they complete the process of converting to obeying everything Jesus commanded. However, the Bible doesn't describe such cases. Yes, Rom 2:13-15 describes cases involving people who are considered savable because they live in harmony with their conscience and convictions, but in such cases they did not experience rebirth or conversion in the normal sense of the word.

Again, most people experience rebirth before they complete converting to obeying everything Jesus commanded. In such cases, they are lacking in areas that require BIble study and prayer. For example, they may have crucified their old man habits of sin and experienced rebirth before learning about Sabbath-keeping or health reform. In such cases, they are reining in their moral imperfections and keeping them under the control of a sanctified will and mind.

However, they are ignorantly breaking the law of God as it pertains to the Sabbath and health. Nevertheless, they are morally perfect in that they are not violating the law of God as they know it. So, the question is, what do you think such believers can do ignorantly that violates the will and law of God?

Been wondering where that post was. Thanks for finding it.

You ask how such believers can ignorantly violate God's law. You already mentioned health laws, so let's go there.

Let's say someone has given themselves 100% to God, not withholding anything. That means that they are not knowingly disobeying God's will in anything. If they were knowingly disobedient in anything, that means they have not surrendered to God, and they are not born again.

But let's consider one who was drawn to Jesus by His character, rather that His dietary principles. This person fell in love with Jesus because of His love, not His food. So he's studying to find out more of God's will, but he hasn't quite made it through all of Leviticus yet; he got stuck in chapters 4-6 about all the sacrifices for sins done ignorantly, while only one sacrifice takes care of deliberate sin. Wrestling with such deep thoughts makes him hungry and he gets a burger at McDonald's, violating God's will as revealed later on in Leviticus.

Here he is imperfect because he falls short of the holy standard. Yet, because he is abiding in Jesus, His character stands in the place of his, and he is counted righteous because Jesus was absolutely morally perfect.

Are you suggesting such sins of ignorance count as moral imperfections? What does morality have to do with eating a burger at McDonald's? Doesn't morals have to do with volition?

"But Christ reaches us where we are. He took our nature and overcame, that we through taking His nature might overcome. Made “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3), He lived a sinless life.

Since partaking of the divine nature does not make us God, why, then, do some people seem to think partaking of fallen human nature would make Jesus a sinner?

He who made the physical laws also made the moral laws. Transgression of physical law has moral impact. But that's a topic for another thread.

If you want something more clearly moral, consider adultery. There are people who have multiple wives, not knowing any better.

Let's look at Adam. Sinning once made him a sinner. But no matter how much he partook of the divine nature, it never made him divine. Anyone can become a sinner, but either you have divinity or you don't. They are fundamentally different phenomena.

Aren't we called upon to reach the sinlessness of Adam before his fall? Why is it so odious to think the Jesus Himself had some unfallen characteristics?

A famous postlap wrote:
Is this sin developed by personal choice or inherent at birth?

A: Is this sin developed by personal choice or inherent at birth?

W: Choice.

Wrote one of your favorite postlapsarians (who was also quoted in Zurcher's dissertation):


So Waggoner was a closet prelapsarian, huh? Ha, where's Rosa's brave confirmation when you need it?

BTW, you know you've got to pick up the slack in her absence, don't you? Good to see you re-energized, mate.

Willy

Perhaps a helpful linguistic lesson and disambiguating discourse is in order.

Comparing two expressions by EGW at two different stages is your preferred postlapsarian, since I assume you're happily paying tithe toward his scholarly papers, sermon ink and salary (LOL):

"'Seth was a worthy character, and was to take the place of Abel in right doing. Yet he was a son of Adam like sinful Cain, and inherited from the nature of Adam no more natural goodness than did Cain. He was born in sin; but by the grace of God, in receiving the faithful instructions of his father Adam, he honored God in doing his will' (Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 1, p. 60).

"While Adam was created sinless, in the likeness of God, Seth, like Cain, inherited the fallen nature of his parents" (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 80).

Mrs. White’s, 1870s “Born in sin” becomes her 1890s, “inherited the fallen nature.” But even the 1870 expression is not unclear. She says Seth was “like sinful Cain,” and “inherited from the nature of Adam no more natural goodness than did Cain.” Most notably, in spite of the nature he was born with, “he honored God in doing His will.” In 1890 she repeats the “no more natural goodness” line but moves from the vaguer “in sin” to the more precise “fallen nature.”

Before 1888 and the stronger emphasis on the nature of Christ, it was sufficient to use the phrase “in sin.” But with the increasing emphasis heaven placed upon this topic as the 19th century wore onward, it became important that the concept be expressed in more precise language. A clearer understanding of God’s will opens new duties to His people. As the light from Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary shines yet more brightly upon us, the language we use to express truth will inevitably be refined. The Church is to come out from past darkness, not sink back into it.

The inspired testimony about overcoming in fallen human nature is clear.

"One honored of all heaven came to this world to stand in human nature at the head of humanity, testifying to the fallen angels and to the inhabitants of the unfallen worlds that through the divine help which has been provided, every one may walk in the path of obedience to God’s commands" (God’s Amazing Grace, p. 103).

"Everyone who by faith obeys God’s commandments, will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression" (Maranatha, p. 224).

These statements decidedly debunk the selective use of Ellen G. White statements to teach original sin or its equivalent. Those who presented the texts already discussed as evidence for teaching that man is guilty by nature followed the texts with a Bible quote which they chose to give but not to explain: Ecclesiastes 7:20:

"For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not."

By not explaining such a text, they leave the clear impression that they do not truly think victory is possible. They might say they do. But then why present such a text, saying nothing about how it relates to victory, and giving it in the midst of a discussion promoting the idea that “we all sin because we are sinners”?

The New Theology makes only a selective use of the Spirit of Prophecy writings because that is the only way to teach its doctrine. Because this view misrepresents the truth about human freewill and the power available to transform fallen man through the gospel, it is antagonistic to the very core of the Seventh-day Adventist message. Watch for this. Check the product before you buy. Kick the tires; sometimes they fall off!

End Quote

You don't happen to have the mailing address for Mentone's treasurer do you? (Kidding, Elle!)

Willy

No. But only because Adam possessed a sinless nature. We don't. Alongside Mrs. White's above comment (M224), instructive as it is, the Bible also inherently presupposes we can reach the sinlessness of Christ after He took man's sinful flesh.

For me, it's "odious to think" we still aren't living like the perfect Jesus, "by faith obey[ing] God’s commandments."

Willy

I agree that willfully disobeying the laws of health is a moral sin. The same thing is true of any law (moral or mosaic) that is willfully transgressed. However, do you think sinning ignorantly is a moral sin? How can it involve morals if people have no idea that what they're doing is against the law? This applies to anything and everything, including multiple spouses.

The question is - What falls under the heading of "sins of ignorance"? What can normal people think, feel, say, or do that they have no idea is against the law? I'm not talking about people who have hardened their hearts and no longer believe certain things are against the law. Instead, I have in mind people who have normal intelligence and sensibilities.

Do any of the following sins fall under the heading of "sins of ignorance"? If not, what does and why?

Romans
1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Yes, sinning is what makes sinless people sinners. In the same way partaking of the divine nature does not make sinners divine, so too, partaking of fallen human nature did not make Jesus a sinner. This fundamentally the same principle. The only thing makes anyone a "sinner" is sinning. We are sinners because we have sinned - not because we inherited Adam's fallen nature. We are not guilty of sinning simply because we have a fallen nature. Guilt is incurred when we sin. For these reasons, Jesus was able to take upon Himself the same fallen nature we have without incurring guilt or requiring a savior.

Do you agree?

Willy, I don't think we have ever spoken to each other on this forum. That is, I've never responded to one of your posts and you haven't responded to one of my posts. At least, I don't recall. At any rate, I appreciate your sweet and gentle disposition. Thank you.

What you said and posted above made me wonder - Is there ever a time when people are not guilty of sinning, a instant of time when they have not yet sinned? Or, does "all have sinned" include everyone, including infants? Have you ever explored this question?

Ellen White observed, “It is the privilege of every believer in Christ to possess Christ’s nature, a nature far above that which Adam forfeited by transgression.” (UL 18) This insight seems to suggest whatever disadvantage we inherited from Adam is more than offset by partaking of the divine nature. IOW, the fact Adam possessed a sinless nature does not seem to mean he was able to attain unto heights of sinlessness not available to us in Christ. Am I hearing her right?

Thanks for the detailed response. I'll respond in pieces, as I have opportunity.



I mean just what the "old guys" said. The two main sticking points it seems to me between prelaps and postlaps has to do with Christ's being tempted from within and with His having hereditary tendencies to sin. Prelaps say these don't apply to Christ whereas the "old guys" did.



The entire church believed Christ could be temped from within, and that He had hereditary tendencies to sin.



What you're saying here seems pretty vague to me. I think the main issues are whether Christ had hereditary tendencies to sin, and whether He could be tempted from within.



Can you quote some postlapsarian who says this was true for Jesus? I'd like to see some evidence that what you're alleging is true before commenting further.



There seems to be disagreement on the two points I mentioned.

You're misconstruing what she said. Christ had not evil propensities because He didn't sin, not because He took a different human nature than we have. She was consistent in this position.



This is ambiguous. If one says that Christ had tendencies to sin, this could be misconstrued as Christ having sinned. So she, quite rightly, did not say that. However, she did say that Christ took the same nature we have, and we know that nature has tendencies to sin. This is what the "old guys" believed.



Of course we have tendencies to sin. She speaks of cultivated and inherited tendencies to sin, of which we have both.



In this context, she wrote about how the exact moment of when divinity combined with humanity we don't know. She wasn't saying that Christ didn't take a human nature like ours. She was bringing out that Christ never sinned, and that Christ was divine.

Is it your thought that Ellen White was correcting Baker on the same position that she was endorsing Prescott regarding? That wouldn't make sense, would it?

Also, I hasten to add that I think your methodology here is terrible. You should be looking at "The Desire of Ages" to understand her Christology, not an unpublished private letter to someone whose teachings are unknown.



I agree that she did not say that Christ was "altogether like us" to anybody else. She always maintained His sinlessness and divinity.

Pleasure, MM. I've indirectly studied this subject to some extent, naturally, but I haven't honestly delved into it the way I would like, or the way you obviously have.

Not that the topic is that complex, mind you, but it's simply that there is such a wide variety of opinion, here and everywhere, that perhaps at the moment splitting these theological hairs is better suited for those whose IQ (M-A-T) is at least through intuition and perception nearing the fortunate 500. (Your welcome.)

As you've likely noticed, I lean more toward the panoramic view and historical perspective. . . that propagated 'big pictures for little minds' conceptual metaphor, so popular in today's media. Sorry, mum. Though, again, pleasure "posting" you.

Willy, er, William

Incredible quotation, I agree. Are you hearing her right? Why wouldn't you be, mate? Or is there a fragmenting endpoint I don't see for lack of a higher quotient.

William

Oh, your welcome. How thoughtful of you, thank you. Though instead of "sweet and gentle," no doubt what you had in mind and really meant is "rugged and tough as nails," right?

Right?

William

There are basic processes when conducting professional research of any kind, obviously. Gathering data is one of them. What historical researcher, for example, would dare test and analyze their hypothesis or finalize a conclusion based on ANYTHING unpublished? As students we're taught that any faulty postulation has zero credibility in serious research. And I certainly don't mean to sound smug or demean anyone in stating this most elementary of points. Yes?

William

how do you equate my original question with the thread in general?

There doesn't appear to be any lasting function for this kind of rhetorical ineptness. Why? Because any clear-minded, truth-seeking researcher will admit that in the Christological debate,

"The choice of the devout Adventist is therefore between Questions on Doctrine and Desire of Ages" (Zurcher).

Quite frankly, any other source of resolution is simply shortsighted and naive.

William

As one question among many. I think it was a good question.

Those with other preferences for sources of theology will have to forgive my regular usage of those connected to the youth conference movement. As a young person, it's not unheard of to gravitate toward those with a similar, though maybe not identical or even perfect, theological background. So it is through this homogeneous compulsion (do not like the way that sounded!) that I quote a compelling perspective on the soteriology of Steps to Christ from one of GYC's supporting architects:

[Titus 3 quoted] No, we are not saved by any merit from any of our own works done apart from God. But look at the pictures in these texts. Justification is here paired with metaphors of washing, of renewal, of a working of the Holy Spirit in us. No wonder Ellen G. White balances these things beautifully in Steps to Christ, pp. 62, 63:

"It was possible for Adam, before the fall, to form a righteous character by obedience to God’s law. But he failed to do this, and because of his sin our natures are fallen and we cannot make ourselves righteous. Since we are sinful, unholy, we cannot perfectly obey the holy law. We have no righteousness of our own with which to meet the claims of the law of God. But Christ has made a way of escape for us. He lived on earth amid trials and temptations such as we have to meet. He lived a sinless life. He died for us, and now He offers to take our sins and give us His righteousness. If you give yourself to Him, and accept Him as your Saviour, then, sinful as your life may have been, for His sake you are accounted righteous. Christ’s character stands in place of your character, and you are accepted before God just as if you had not sinned.

"More than this, Christ changes the heart. He abides in your heart by faith. You are to maintain this connection with Christ by faith and the continual surrender of your will to Him; and so long as you do this, He will work in you to will and to do according to His good pleasure. So you may say, ‘The life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me.’ Galatians 2:20. So Jesus said to His disciples, ‘It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.’ Matthew 10:20. Then with Christ working in you, you will manifest the same spirit and do the same good works—works of righteousness, obedience.

"So we have nothing in ourselves of which to boast. We have no ground for self-exaltation. Our only ground of hope is in the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and in that wrought by His Spirit working in and through us."

Did you hear what inspiration said? “Our only ground of hope is in the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and in that wrought by His Spirit working in and through us.” We must have the counting and we must have the inward working. Together, these constitute “our only ground of hope.” On justification, the following also helps us.

"God requires the entire surrender of the heart, before justification can take place; and in order for man to retain justification, there must be continual obedience, through active, living faith that works by love and purifies the soul" (Faith and Works, p. 100).

One advocate of the New Theology position, says that this topic “is the great divide.” I concur, not in that this was the great divide upon which the Protestant Reformation was shaped, for it was not; but in that today it divides within the Church the New Theology advocates from the advocates of authentic Seventh-day Adventism. And which does Mrs. White ask? the “counted-only” question, “How shall a man be counted righteous?” or the “counted and changed” question, “How shall a man be made righteous?” Steps to Christ answers:

"How shall a man be just with God? How shall the sinner be made righteous?" (Steps to Christ, p. 23).

End Quote

A sidenote question begs, Isn't the Steps to Christ gospel the same one that Jones and Waggoner preached?

William

Strangely, it is the soteriology of Steps to Christ that keeps me from accepting the Christology presented by many postlapsarians. Note these passages from two chapters near and dear to most "old theology" proponents:
It should be clear that in terms of soteriology - what must we do to be saved - the nature of sinful man is the antithesis of the nature of God. Hence, we need to be healed, we need to be set free, we need a "renewing of our whole nature." And the result of all this change is that we become like Christ, making it obvious that in terms of the "soteriological nature" Jesus was not like sinful man.

Veering a little bit away from SC, but not from soteriology, we have MM's quote:
We may - must - possess Christ's nature. That means we don't possess it by default. That also means that what we do possess by default is not what Jesus possessed by default. At least, not when we're talking about how to be saved.

It is a nature far above unfallen Adam's nature. Obviously, I hope, this cannot be Adam's fallen, messed up, alienated, sinful, evil nature. (That reminds me of the PP quote that went by unnoticed, but we'll leave it that way for now.)


That attitude is one reason why I think postlaps are misinformed at best or malicious at worst. And I've come across the best and the worst.

I am, at least by Kirkpatrick's definition, a New Theologian. Yet, in terms of overcoming sin, I have yet to find anyone, Old Theologians included, who has a stronger stance against sin. While some call for complete overcoming of sin in the last generation, I call for complete obedience in THIS generation.

It is the unkind generalization of New Theologians displayed in your quote that led your GYC buddies to label me an antinomian. What a joke! (The ignorance is the joke. Being judgmental is never a joke.) But it is a joke that makes Jesus weep. Perhaps if they spent less time claiming that Jesus was like us, they might have more time left to become like Jesus.

But enough of that. Let us behold Jesus, and we will see the distinct difference between "His perfect nature" and ours. Then we can fall at the foot of the cross and be changed.

Whoa. Didn't mean to evoke anything negative, mate. Not sure I'm following everything you've just said, nor did I know they hurt you in some way, maybe we'll let things sit for awhile and come back to them a little later.

In any case, glad you're still breathing, at least till Rosa resurrects again. (PS: Just think Ming. . . no ring.)

William

We take turns. In a few weeks, it will be my turn to disappear while I move. Actually, I should disappear now. Got work to do.

Hi Arnold, Before you disappear, could you comment what you thought of Pastor Liversidge "Victory in Christ" message?

At one instance, he does mention something in regards to Christ humanity, however, I couldn't tell if he was pre or post-laps. However, that's not the focuss of the message anyway.

But the question deals with a pertinent principle, and, as such, it would seem to be deserving of an answer. It touches on the human nature of Jesus in that it asks if simply having sinful flesh nature makes people guilty. If it does, then, of course, Jesus didn't have it. But if it doesn't, then, yes, Jesus had it. Or, is this line of thinking way off?

If I'm hearing her right, what does it imply about born again believers and sinlessness? Is pre-fall Adamic sinlessness available to them now, today, in the real sense rather than in the forensic-only sense?

Christ's divine nature, not His human nature. Perhaps "partake of" may be clearer than "possess" here.



Of course! Christ took "our sinful nature" upon "His sinless nature." His nature was, by default, sinless and divine. That's why He had to take "our sinful nature" upon it. Otherwise He wouldn't have had it. He could only get it by taking that which was not His by default. In order to do this, He became flesh.

We must partake of Christ's nature (sinless and divine) by faith. We do this by being born again.



Right!

(More later)

Both. Jesus was both, and what I meant to say is that you are like Jesus. Christianity is obviously working well for you. Praise the Lord.

Arnold, please don't forget to address my posts to you on page 120. Thank you.

This seems like a splendid example of the pot calling the kettle black. You say "postlaps." Not "some postlaps," but simply "postlaps." Do you think Jones or Waggoner or Prescott or Haskell fit into this category? Or, to name modern day postlaps, how about Wieland or Gibson, or Short, or Finneman, or Sequeira? So because you may know some postlap or postlaps who is or are misinformed or malicious, you feel it's fine for you to label all of them as "misinformed" or "malicious."

This is one of the most egregious cases of potkettlism I've seen.



Then it appears your not a New Theologian by said definition.



If you find fault with being judgmental, should you be such yourself?

Ah, quite right, MM. It's just that you caught me at a "nonthinking" moment, one where any deep thought might have hurt.


No, course not. But I also assumed that you knew I was a professor of postfall.


No, not "way off" at all, if I plainly understood your plain language. Hope I scratched it.

William

Perhaps. Though now, MM, we're getting far more entailing, even though I believe you'd argue that this idea is simple and soteriologically fundamental to this thread. And you may be right.

However, I believe I've read some posts where you go back and forth with others on this (Tom?), and though I think I understand your theological thrust, I will respectfully remain neutral and avoid unnecessary commentary, saving my limited energies for our non-postlapsarian friends.

I'm distracted enough at the moment (student), and as I intimated to Arnold, if anyone's query might unnecessarily arouse an already-in-training cortex, well, let's just say I'd rather hear you wax soliloquyly than I stressfully. No offense. Think I'm making up words here.

(Truthfully, however, I think some of your clearer arguments are spot-on! This brief opinion will have to suffice for now. )

William

Wow. Then praise the Lord, indeed!

William

A: I am, at least by Kirkpatrick's definition, a New Theologian. Yet, in terms of overcoming sin, I have yet to find anyone, Old Theologians included, who has a stronger stance against sin.

T: Then it appears your not a New Theologian by said definition.

Without classifying anyone pejoratively, ever, and with the motivation of wanting to learn not label, the above exchange seems to be the precise issue at the core of our apparent perplexity in the Christological debate:

Can the New Theology (NT) teach "overcoming sin" without the core doctrinal system of the Old True Theology?

Here's at least one reply as we try to comprehend the NT's doctrinal platform, upon which stand many of my dearest friends and classmates:

"In its early and middle days, it was relatively easy to spot the New Theology. Its proponents openly claimed that, this side of translation, real victory over sin was impossible. Such is no longer the case. With increasing frequency we hear advocates of the New Theology say that yes, you can have victory over sin by the understanding of salvation that they teach. But today we have come to the place where the “Can you have victory over sin?” test no longer suffices. The disease has advanced to another stage.

"The notion that we cannot have victory over sin is rightly identified as a New Theology trademark. But there are two aspects to consider when pondering the New Theology, and both are very important. One part is the experiential claim made for it. The other part is the doctrinal system that supposedly takes you to the experience made in that claim. The doctrinal system does take you to the experience of its theology. The problem in the case of the New Theology is, it is not an experience of complete overcoming.

"Today one hears the experiential claim made that by the doctrinal system underlying the New theology, we can completely overcome. The problem is, there is no way to get from the doctrinal system to the experiential claim. That is, when we accept certain notions about the nature of man, the nature of Christ, and the doctrine of sin, we cannot—within the doctrinal system encompassing those notions—actually get to the place where we overcome.

"Advocates of the New Theology today make their claim of total victory. They may not explicitly mention the doctrinal system that is supposed to take you there. It is implicit; it is implied.

"Some proponents of the New theology today will even be heard to make the experiential claim that one must overcome. The problem these have is that with the doctrinal understanding of the New Theology, you have a system that cannot get you to that place.

"Thus it is especially in regard to doctrinal system and not the experiential claim that we must today identify a teaching as being—or not being—the New Theology. Anyone can claim that by their system you can arrive at an experience of victory over sin. But what if they are teaching a merely human system in which the power of God is not present? Remember this prediction from a century ago (pay particular attention to the emphasized text): [1SM 204-205]."

William

Continued. . .

"[1SM 204-205 quoted] Here is classic prediction foretelling the arrival of the current error. Those who brought us the New Theology really thought they were bringing a great reformation to us. The new views concerning what Christ’s humanity was like and what sin has meant for human nature, brought changes to the baseline principles of truth God gave to this people. A hundred years of sound, unified Christology was discarded. Advocates of this New Theology have never urged anyone to sin.

"They have always taught that virtue was better than vice. But their plan was one not devised by God. It counters His truth that, "Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world" (1 John 4:2, 3).

"And that, "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit (Romans 8:3, 4).

"Advocates of the New theology say that our nature itself is condemned, while inspiration says that our condemnation comes from retrenching behind the selfish tendencies we are born with and making them a part of our character. These teach that virtue is better than vice, but at the end of the day, their talk of victory over sin is suspect, for their own theology does not make room for any such victory. Still always there is that fallen humanity, with but little offered in the way of definitions of what such teachers mean when they say they believe in “victory over sin.”

"One who teaches this kind of “victory over sin” was heard to say the following at the end of a recent sermon on John 15:3: “We’re like those disciples: stubborn hearted, failing, fumbling, and all kinds of pride still wrapped up in our hearts—[even so] we hear the sweet whisper of Jesus, ‘you are clean.’ “You are already clean through the word I have spoken to you.”

"But inspiration comments on the same: "These words mean more than bodily cleanliness. Christ is still speaking of the higher cleansing as illustrated by the lower. He who came from the bath was clean, but the sandaled feet soon became dusty, and again needed to be washed. So Peter and his brethren had been washed in the great fountain opened for sin and uncleanness. Christ acknowledged them as His. But temptation had led them into evil, and they still needed His cleansing grace. When Jesus girded Himself with a towel to wash the dust from their feet, He desired by that very act to wash the alienation, jealousy, and pride from their hearts. This was of far more consequence than the washing of their dusty feet. With the spirit they then had, not one of them was prepared for communion with Christ. Until brought into a state of humility and love, they were not prepared to partake of the paschal supper, or to share in the memorial service which Christ was about to institute. Their hearts must be cleansed. Pride and self-seeking create dissension and hatred, but all this Jesus washed away in washing their feet. A change of feeling was brought about. Looking upon them, Jesus could say, ‘Ye are clean.’ Now there was union of heart, love for one another. They had become humble and teachable. Except Judas, each was ready to concede to another the highest place. Now with subdued and grateful hearts they could receive Christ’s words" (The Desire of Ages, p. 646).

"Whereas the New Theology preacher claims that he teaches victory over sin, his statement said we were clean even while remaining with “all kinds of pride still wrapped up in our hearts.” But the true theology said that Jesus’ actions changed the hearts of the disciples. When Jesus said they were clean, they truly “had become” teachable, truly had had their hearts cleansed.

"The New Theology claims victory over sin but at the end of the day accepts defeat. The True Theology cleanses and washes away. Inspired writings showed the preacher to be wrong. Yet many who participated in that meeting were perhaps misled. It is a subtle day. Down the hallways of time we have arrived where all apparent claims must be tested."

More later.

William

hi william,

i skimmed through the paper you put up and checked the context of selected messages quoted. im not sure who came up with this "new theology" term which is claimed to be taught now but it doesnt seem to be based on what ellen white was referring to.

here she is talking about kelloggs pantheism in the living temple. so where is the pantheism in what is being called the new theology here?

i cant base my religion on what this person is saying here, mostly because i dont know what he/she is referring to. what im seeing is this person has come across something that doesnt seem to agree with what he/she has believed and so is calling it "new theology" and giving ellen white statements that have nothing to do with what he/she is saying to justify his/her conclusions.



i need to point out also that i would have to hear the whole sermon referred to here to see if i would come to the same conclusions. knowing who these people are and what they teach would also be helpful. then i could pray and search the scriptures for myself to see if that is so.

So far so good. In fact, very good.

He teaches victory in experience, not just in theory. He also teaches victory in heart and mind, not just in action.

And it is all founded on accepting what Jesus did for us, not what we do for Jesus. From what I've heard so far, he has the root and the fruit in the correct order. His session on Romans 6 is very good.

I'll have to read the transcript one of these days. If only I could read a book while driving.


And that's as it should be. Christ's humanity, whether pre or post, is secondary compared to the divinity He offers us.

i did a search of "sinful nature" as used by ellen white and it seems to me she used it to refer to our weakened nature. if anyone can see how she used it differently please point it out.

TQ, earlier I quoted a reply to Elle stating in effect that according to a Pfandl document ML Andreasen coined the term "New Theology" to describe the innovations of QOD.

William

thank you, but that didnt address my other points. most importantly that the selected messages quote had to do with kelloggs pantheism taking over....

Interesting conversations. J

This didn't seem to be well explained. What's the logic? (underlined part)

I certainly wouldn't want to argue that a postlapsarian is more likely to be less of a sinner than a prelapsarian.

Here's one:

Here's another:

Here she uses it synonymously with "sinful flesh"

Yes, I agree. That short snippet leaves too much room for misinterpretation. Keep in mind, I've searched online for other comprehensive descriptions of NT but cannot seem to find any, and those I did find either don't extensively deliberate on details or arbitrarily demonize the opposition. Do you have any qualified sources in mind?

William

Yes, of course. You may want to then take umbrage with the document's author, Larry Kirkpatrick. But I think I see the reason for your inquietude.

William

You are right. I should have said "some postlaps." I have had the pleasure of meeting a few gracious postlaps. For example, after an hour of talking with Dennis Priebe about soteriology one afternoon, he said he saw nothing wrong with what I said.

So I'll limit my "misinformed or malicious" label to whoever wrote that, and to whoever believes it.


You must not know LK's definition. I think you can find it on GreatControversy.org. The fact that I believe Jesus had a human nature with both pre and post-Fall qualities makes me a New Theologian in his sight.


I don't think I'm being judgmental on this point. Remember, I was there; you weren't. You weren't the one accused of being a spy, of joining the discussion for the express purpose of causing trouble, of being antinomian simply because I believe that Christ's nature is different from mine, of being evil because I ask too many questions (which they haven't answered to this day). And to think I was initially excited because I thought I had found a haven of rest after the many years of battling antinomianism and ungodliness in my church. That was misplaced faith!

I think I'm qualified to make a call on this one. Now, if you have evidence to refute my experience, please present it. I'd like to have my faith restored. As it is, most postlaps I have come across have an inordinate fascination with finding fault with non-postlaps, whether justified or not.

Check this out. For the first couple of years at Mentone, I went back and forth with LK on this topic. We wrote many volumes trying to explain our respective positions. Eventually, he gave me some pulpit time. He scheduled me for a day when he was away, and didn't even have time to listen to the sermon audio. That tells me that he knew me well enough to know that I wasn't going to preach error, and didn't need to check up on me. He's one of the gracious ones.

In contrast, is one of his members. On a day when I was scheduled to preach, she went to LK to tell him that I should not be allowed to speak in church anymore because she heard that I did not hold the same belief on the nature of Christ. This is a lady who had listened to several of my sermons already, and loved every one of them, even wanted to make tapes to send out to her friends. To his credit, LK told her that he had discussed the issue with me at length, and he doesn't think there's going to be any problem. I eventually had a one-on-one with this lady for another reason, and I asked what she thought I believed about the nature of Christ. She did not know; she couldn't even offer a guess. But you gotta watch out for them prelapsarians!

Another time, I was being considered by the board to be added as an elder. One of the board members approached the person who put my name up. Her concern was, "He doesn't believe like us." This was the same lady who gave me a paper by Priebe, and when I said I have some concerns with it, she didn't want to discuss it. (But Priebe himself sees no problem with my position.) Anyway, the lady who put my name up, a postlap herself, replied that her son discussed it at length with me and sees no problem, LK discussed it at length with me and sees no problem, she knows I am definitely against sin so she has no problem, and my kids are well-behaved, so maybe my belief is not so bad. I eventually became an elder, and I doubt that LK shed any tears over it.

So I've seen a range attitudes among those who are "like Jesus."

Last one (on "sinful nature" not meaning simply "weakened nature")

No. I think there's truth in what was said, but very likely no in the way the author had in mind. Specifically, I think we need to know that Christ shared in our sorrows and temptations, that we have a Savior who is "near at hand" and can sympathize with our weaknesses, knowing by experience the strength of our temptations. This was a strong emphasis of the 1888 messengers. Fifield also emphasized this very strongly. And Ellen White too. I think this is a part of the Gospel which is wayyyy under preached.

No, I don't.



To me it would make you a partial New Theologian. Insofar as Christ's human nature is concerned, yes, but insofar as victory over sin is concerned, no.

In most instances in Steps to Christ, she uses "nature" in reference to our unChristlikeness, as opposed to merely our weaknesses. And that makes sense, since the hindrance to being with Jesus is not our weakness, but our evil.

Think I'm going to disagree with you here (or with Arnold's experience)? Um, no!

William

You were being judgmental by not qualifying your statement, which you acknowledged above (i.e., that you should have qualified your statement).

I don't care about your LK experience. Let me rephrase that. I'm sorry for any negative experiences you suffered, but LK is only one perspective of things. You can't validly lump your negative experience with whatever group with which you were trying to fellowship with all postlapsarians. I know *many* gracious postlapsarians, just wonderful people. (I know many gracious prelapsarians too).

I've asked you several times if you agree with the "old guys" (i.e. Fifield, Waggoner, Jones, Haskell). I don't believe you've answered. I'm curious to know.

If you would quote things, it would sure be easier to discuss things with you. If you can't do a direct quote, make one up. Like, "I recall something like this being said:" and quote it. That way I have some context for your comments, and I could well agree with your points. But when you make these broad generalizing statements about postlapsarians, that's most unfortunate. These are statements I know to be false by my own experience, just as much as you know your statements to be true by yours. That's because I run around a different group of people than you.

I don't understand your comment here.

Did you read Fifield's sermon which I posted earlier? If not, I can repost it. I rarely hear people make the points Fifield made. Jones, Waggoner and Prescott made similar points. I'm not saying I haven't heard people make these points, just that I hear it way to rarely, and it's a message people need to hear. Not simply that Jesus is our example, and we can overcome (an important message), but Jesus knows our experiences and sympathizes with us.

I asked the question rhetorically. IOW, no waayyy was I going to disagree with either of you.


Yes, of course, I did. These are the sort of thematic sermons I wish our church could hear today! No doubt.

William

Ok. Good.



Yes, me too. In the church I went to last week the pastor gave a real nice sermon on the Prodigal Son. He said usually such sermons focus on the prodigal, but he wanted to focus on God's character. Very nice. God's character is what it's all about (see my signature).

See mine. . . bloody marvelous. And with that, an exquisite Sabbath for all.

Willy, er, William

I went through his book, and it's just a transcript of his CDs. Nothing more really. I was quite moved by the message and it did put everything in perspective for me. I would like to listen to your sermons too, since my hunch is that you have the same focuss as Pastor Liversidge. That's what I want to focuss myself and live by. As soon as I can fix my computer's speakers or figure out how to burn CDs, I'll would love to have more real food. Do you by any chance, have transcript of your sermons?

so how are you reading those statements?

i found it interesting that the "sinful flesh" is used only once which makes it difficult to form a definition.

glad you think so.

it seems much better to me if someone disagrees with anothers understanding that they explain why.

i understand completely your point and am not trying to minimize it but.....

i think we could agree that we can get stuck in whatever position-the daily, for example-and condemn the other side for bringing in "new theology" because they dont believe just like we do.

i have just started looking for all references to "sinful nature", "fallen nature", etc., to see if she has different uses for each, and how they would relate to bible terms, so if you could help me out here.

I had noticed it, thinking it was quite nice, especially the last part. I hadn't seen this before your quoting it.

They seem pretty straightforward. She says we have a battle to fight against sin and our sinful nature. If "sinful nature" simply meant "weakened nature" in the sense of fatigue, I don't see how what she said would make sense.



You mean once in Romans 8:3? Well, Ellen White endorsed Prescott's sermon "The Word Became Flesh," (as "truth separated from error") and Prescott, in that sermon, used the phrase a couple of dozen times, so looking at that sermon may help in this regard.



You just requoted this, with part of it in red (the red part being why I included the quote, so it would seem you're agreeing with me.) Please provide some sort of comment. It seems clear to me that this could not possible have the meaning "weakened nature."

I haven't said a word about the "other side" in regards to "New Theology." My primary bone of contention on this thread has been the ignoring of history in the view that Christ did not take our sinful nature.

i was responding to arnolds post and just left in all the rest for context.

Hi TQ: Thank you for bringing up this point, as it will allow an opportunity to clarify any misconceptions and set the record straight. So this is less directed at you but more for the larger group. Then I'm running out of the door late. . . again.

Your statement unfortunately implies a condemnation of “they,” or individuals, as opposed to it, a theological system. I shudder to think anyone on this forum would stoop so low! Indeed, Adventists in the past have vehemently opposed Catholicism's joining of church and state, yet have always treated its individual worshipers graciously, compassionately.

Pertaining to us here, and regardless of one's side, each one of us has a peculiar perspective to offer this HOC thread, making for a far more interesting whole. Don't you think?

Some of us may appreciate a gathering process similar to trial-based discovery. And like the prosecuting barrister who discreetly “unpeeled the onion” before a convinced jury, some of us enjoy obtaining information, like one might at an American deposition, for example, where you can lockdown someone's testimony for litigational reasons.

In my short time here, I sense there is one side in this discussion asking most of the questions while answering very few. Question. What debating theologian could fathom having an analytical argument on Christology without being 100% certain of their opponent's position!?

In collecting information for both sides, our metaphorical "discovery" seeks to gather pertinent evidence or testimony in order to encourage informed conclusions in the courtroom of discussion.

So what you are witnessing in this painstaking endeavor is not a condemnatory spirit. What you are observing is an honest attempt to unpeel the onion for argument's sake.

Condemning a precious child of God for believing differently than I? No, never! Yet do we each approach this often-uneasy topic with a preferred style and methodology?

In the end, I have little doubt each of us here is seeking only one thing: to discover the Truth. . . and grow to be like Jesus.

William

i was making a general observation of what i have seen in several forums, some much more "condemning" than others.

as well as making a generalization based on what ive seen on these forums, some worse than others.

Right. There is no excuse in thinking that all our expositions of scripture are without error.

The promise goes back to the sinlessness of unfallen Adam. We can be converted to the point where we have some of the qualities of prefall man. And if that's a condition we can reach, I think it reasonable to say that Jesus also lived in that condition. Do you agree?


Indeed, it is odious to think it, and even more odious to experience it.

Didn't you quote someone who said that (I paraphrase) though New Theologians might profess to be against sin, their theological system makes it impossible to actually overcome sin? And if "they" cannot overcome sin, "they" are condemned, right?


I know this much: If people excuse selfishness of any form, they don't know God; and if they don't know God, they cannot have eternal life.

The preacher quoted in your quote certainly did accept defeat, and was quite satisfied with it. But I have seen another form of defeat proudly proclaimed by some on the other side of the fence.

In a discussion a while back, I quoted a passage from Andreasen's Last Generation chapter where he said that true overcoming of sin includes coming to the point of hating it so much that the overcomer is no longer attracted to it. He expanded that concept, saying that the 144k will experience this kind of overcoming of sin on every point.

So what was Andreasen teaching? Sinful man can reach the point of hating sin so much that he will not even desire to sin! By the grace of God, beyond stopping ourselves from doing sins, we can come to the point of not even wanting to sin. As EGW said, we can be so converted that in obeying God's commands, we will be merely carrying out our own impulses. Can I get an Amen! my brothers and sisters?

Unfortunately, the Old Theology defender I pointed this out to, who is prominent among conservatives, responded this way: We must remember that while Andreasen had a lot of truth, he was not any more inspired than you or me.

How could he respond otherwise, when he has spent so much effort and energy teaching that the sinful lusts we are all familiar with were experienced by Jesus also? If the 144k, or any other sinful man, can be freed from this experience, then they are treading on ground that Jesus never did. I'm sure you see the problems this would cause the "Jesus was our example" crowd.

In the end, I have found that both sides of this theological fence have members who like the smell of garbage. Neither side has a monopoly on sanctification.

And if I'm right on my hunch regarding who wrote your quote, I'm guessing he wrote that over 3 years ago.

Jacob of old, when oppressed with the fear that his sin had cut him off from God, lay down to rest, and "he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven." —Foreward, Steps to Christ.

Strange, indeed. I would like to quickly address this seeming contradiction, since we know Steps to Christ broadly brushes the Savior as the divine-human Ladder. (See Kirkpatrick sermon.)

At least two of many postlapsarians at the time Steps to Christ was written in 1892, were irrevocably connected in 1893 through their congruous Christology. Like E.G. White, A.T. Jones (et al) believed Christ had come all the way down to earth, not on a "shock absorber-outfitted platform above the earth" (Qualls):

"We can have not the slightest doubt that Ellen White agreed with the 1888 reformers to the extent that Christ accepted fallen, sinful human nature at the incarnation" (Knight).

Moreover, one of the few principle books Jones extensively quoted from in his 1893 General Conference sermons was Steps to Christ, using it almost as a text-book while expounding his theology! The SDA historian corroborates:

"At the 1893 General Conference session he [Jones] used passages from her [White's] works as "texts" to base some of his sermons on."

Given then the obvious theological intimacy between the two, it is no wonder we find the newly-minted manuscript directly being quoted from at least 26 times in the 1893 General Conference Bulletin (GCB), where Elder Jones capably joined Ellen White's soteriology with his postfall Christology. Knight further extrapolates:

"By 1895 they [Jones, Waggoner and Prescott] had developed the concept that Christ was just like every other child of Adam—including the tendency to sin—into a central feature of their doctrine of Righteousness By Faith [or the plan of salvation]."

That White's renderings in Steps to Christ catapulted Jones' Christology—an undeniable impetus for his theology at the 1893 GC meetings (as we will shortly outline)—is documented history:

"The theology set forth by Jones, Waggoner and Prescott on the human nature of Christ evolved throughout the early 1890s. . . by 1893 it was becoming a more important part of their theology" (Knight).

Most significant of all, however, was that a divinely-sent prophet, from her comfortable but clairvoyant pew, was openly lauding Jones' synergistic sermons.

So with this backdrop in mind, below are six of Jones' 26 references from Steps to Christ. Each quotation is followed by a brief paragraph or two summarizing relevant context. Our limitations here should be obvious: This is by no means an exhaustive analysis of each sermon; time simply does not permit us a deeper study or wider scope. [Source: White Birch Printing, The Third Angel's Message. (Barronett, WI: Paradise View, 1993).]

1. Sermon No. 1 (p. 6): “Note the following from Steps to Christ, pp. 105, 129, 130.”

Four full paragraphs are quoted to express the need for prayer when conducting Bible study.

2. Sermon No. 10 (p. 76): “In Steps to Christ, p. 64: 'Obedience is not a mere outward compliance, but the service of love.'”

In bridging his Soteriology and Christology, Jones asks the question, “What is obedience?” His reply in essence is: Buy Christ's gold tried in the fire; connecting Rev. 14:12 with the mind of Christ (Rom. 7:25), in light of Christ's human flesh woven in the loom of heaven, that “flesh that is yours and mine, that Christ bore in this world.”

3. Sermon No. 12 (p. 87): “And, that you may have the two things—the truth of justification by faith and the falsity of it—side by side, will read what this says, and then what God says in Steps to Christ.”

Jones next mentions Rome's false forgiveness with Adventism's true forgiveness in contradistinction, then warns against the worship of the beast and his image, or the “devil's doctrine of justification by faith.” The rest of the sermon is replete with quotations from Steps to Christ, enabling him to conclude, “It is the will of God to cleanse us from sin” (White), but only through the third angel's message which points us to the true Eucharist or Living Seed, Christ Jesus, “that Teacher of Righteousness.”

4. Sermon No. 13 (p. 93): “Who will be fitted for the loud cry of the third angel? Those who have the presence of Jesus Christ. Those to whom the Laodicean message has brought by its working and its intent the presence of Jesus Christ. This means the personal presence too—not imaginary, a way off presence; it is not that at all. Let us read the explanation of it here in Steps to Christ, pages 82-85.”

This chapter strongly contends that in order for a salvific latter rain to fully fall, “the personal presence of Jesus” through the Spirit must be abiding in our hearts. This non-Catholic Jesus, the very mystery of God, already portrayed in prior chapters, is none other than that still-looming “flesh that is yours and mine.”

Sermon No. 13 closes with a synopsis from another quotation on faith from Steps to Christ (p. 79): “That is what real faith is. That is faith that will bring to you the outpouring of the latter rain. . . to prepare us for the loud cry and the carrying of the third angel's message in the only way in which it can be carried from this conference.”

5. Sermon No. 14 (p. 101): “You must rely wholly upon his saving grace” [White]. That is Christianity. That is the mind of Christ. There is no devilism about that at all; and it can't get in there, either. Why, you find it also in Steps to Christ. Not stated exactly as that. I will read a passage or two from Steps to Christ, beginning on page 67 and reading to page 71.”

Elder Jones next presents a treatment on the “perfect obedience to the law of God,” which by definition, proffers “eternal life.” His eloquent paraphrase of White's justification by faith? “Our only ground for hope is Christ's righteousness imputed to us and this righteousness wrought in us by the Holy Spirit is the works we do.”

Jones again quotes Steps to Christ (p. 71), warning against trusting in justification by works, but advising we look to the only solution for the carnal mind: The Word's white raiment (Rev. 3:18), “that garment “woven in the loom of heaven, [with] not one thread of human invention” in it.”

6. Sermon No. 15 (p. 104): “That is what the Testimonies and Steps to Christ are for; they are to lead us to see that it is in the Bible and to get it there. Now I shall avoid these purposely, not as though there was anything wrong in using them; but what we want, brethren, is to get at it in the Bible and know where it is there. And that is the Lord's own way as pointed out in the Testimonies. Let me read it here.”

Jones asks two compelling questions: “What is the latter rain?” and “What is the loud cry?” The “congregation” answers: “The message of the righteousness of Christ!” The messenger of the Lord quickly clarifies that this message cannot be manufactured by man; it comes only from above, and to reject it is to reject the One from above.

Jones then quotes Rom. 5:17, stating that there can be no human invention in the perfect robe of righteousness—which had been most ready to cover those at Minneapolis! Quoting from Rom. 1:17; 10:17, 20; 11:6; and 3:24, each revealing a nuance in the role of righteousness by faith in contrast to righteousness by works, Jones reconfirms the eternal truth found in the true Gospel.

To be continued. . .

William

Steps to Christ highlights the sinner's need of a change in mind and character. Jones claimed that Jesus did not have the same mind as the sinner. We don't need a bunch of quotes to establish that, do we? Where it matters most - the heart and mind - Jesus was radically different from the sinner. Moreover, the plan of salvation is to make the sinner radically different from what he naturally is - he becomes a NEW creature.

Jesus, when He came here, did not come as the OLD sinner. He came to take the place of the sinner, not to be one Himself. So that should also make it clear that the ladder came down, but not quite the same as the common sinner. We don't need Jesus to show us what we are, but what we should become.

For what it's worth, your comments read rather like generic platitudes and even sound distinctly like non-Adventist speak, nevertheless, none of it, in my opinion, seems to be the kind of solid argumentation that effectively refutes the facts of denominational history, or the obvious discrepancies still-existing between Ellen White's Christology and that of post-QOD's.

PS: I'll form a complete answer to your thoughts in a later post.

William

Agreed. I didn't understand LK's point. It's certainly possible for a person to have victory over sin to the point of being saved even though one has a prelapsarian theology. If he is talking about victory over sin in the sense of the 144,000 I might agree with him, if I knew what he was thinking.



Which is?

youve got my amen!

it was a pretty good post, too!

This is what Jones taught in the 1895 GCB sermons.



This doesn't make sense to me. What Andreasen wrote was simply what Jones taught. Jones taught that Christ took our sinful nature with its desires, per the quote I presented earlier. So there's no contradiction here. That is, there's no contradiction between Jesus having the same flesh we have with its hereditary tendencies and having no desire to sin.

If the fellow you're mentioning (still no quotes!!) is disagreeing with Jones, then I disagree with him and agree with Jones.



??? Why?

What Jones, Prescott, et all taught was that Jesus Christ prepared the way for humanity. Christ took our sinful flesh and by faith triumphed over the temptations of that sinful flesh, thus preparing the way for the rest of humanity to overcome as He did. So far from treading where Jesus did not tread, the treading is only possible because Jesus did so tread.

This is the difficulty I have with your position, as I understand it (you've never clearly described it, AFAIR) because you have the 144,000, or any of us, for that matter, experiencing victories that Jesus Christ never experienced.

I'm not really interested in refuting anything, or being an apologist for anything. I feel no need to reject or support our denominational history for the sake of history. All I'm interested in is learning and upholding the law and the testimony. If I can do that, I'll be safe.

On that note, I don't mind being generic or non-Adventist, as long as I am faithful to the truth. So if my assertion that Steps to Christ, and more importantly, the steps to Christ, involve a change of heart and mind, a conversion of character and spirit such that we become new creatures, sounds non-Adventist, then I will sound non-Adventist all day long, and not feel bad about it one bit.

In the end, God will not ask, "What do you think is the proper place of the Baker letter in the Christological debate?" or "Did the historical SDA position on Christ's flesh help you develop the correct eschatology?" or any such thing. The pertinent question will be, "Have you been saved from your corrupt heart and sinful mind?"

I must have confused you because that is exactly the position that I am rejecting, not upholding. We cannot have a spiritual experience superior to Christ's in any way.

Amen to that!

Or, maybe I won't. We'll see. Let me explain (by going off topic).

Without going into too much detail, another mate and I had two rather atheistic school-chums leave Cambridge for Loma Linda, and out of nowhere they were mysteriously moved to reconnect to their parent's Adventist tradition. Fancy that? And though mindfully sorting through their pluralistic environment utterly consumed them, much to their parents shock and joy, I just received mail this morning that they both apparently decided last Friday to attend church (a youth Sabbath School) for the first time in years. Needless to say, I'm beside myself, as are their parents and a few others, who are also very dear to us.

And some of you on this forum helped in ways unimaginable. Believe me. Long story short, because a few of you were so absolutely brilliant in arguing either view (you know who you are!), my friend's new-found grasp on the doctrine of Christ, and specifically God's incomprehensible condescension, stirred them to dig even further down into their religious roots. And I know they will keep digging until every theological curiosity is unearthed. To be honest, until a mutual friend of ours discovered Maritime a few years ago through one of his overseas friends, there appeared to be no other platform for them (online or offline) where Christology's finer points were being dissected to this extent and with such intellectual tenacity.

I've said enough for now, I guess. Well, the conclusion is that we often have no idea how by simply discussing a doctrine skillfully, kindly we can gently prod a stranger searching for truth closer to heaven, or in our particular case, closer to Jesus and Adventism's fundamental beliefs. Just imagine having no God at all one minute, then being fully engaged with the God of Scripture the next. Bloody unbelievable, I say. (Sorry, mum.) All of this to say, the principle reason I was challenged to participate on this thread and discuss certain theological issues was for the sake of these two longtime school-chums. (Love you, Annie and Bryce! Ha, don't feel embarrassed.) Thanks to your unique contributions, in a weirdly sad way, I feel my time-consuming “work” is at last consummated (thanks, Rog!)—a peculiar mission accomplished. So, again, from the bottom of my heart, thank you all for being so generous with your time and energy. And always remember, you never know when somebody else out there may be reading and needing a literary nudge toward a welcoming Savior.

William

Hi, all. My telephone line and internet connection were finally installed today, and I see you have been busy in my absence!

William, it's refreshing to know about the Holy Spirit's working in the lives of your friends. May God continue to bless and guide them.

I agree with this. I was having trouble understanding LK's idea in regards to how prelapsarian people cannot have victory over sin. At least, that's how what he said seemed to read. There is a way of reading what he said in a way I might agree with it, but I doubt that's what he had in mind, but without knowing for sure, I can't go beyond saying I'm not understanding where he wanted to go with his comments.



Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but you believe the 144,000 will have complete victory over sin, don't you?

Many aspects of this subject have been discussed, but I would like to comment about a quote which was cited.



I would like to point out that temptations from within come from the carnal heart (mind). Ellen White evidently uses "natural" and "carnal" as synonyms, as the following quotes make clear:

If you would work as Christ worked, if you would overcome as he overcame, go straight to him for help needed to subdue the inclinations of the carnal mind and the passions of the natural heart. {ST, April 1, 1897 par. 12}

All these "natural" infirmities can be overcome by grace. But the "natural," carnal, heart is not subject to the Law of God, neither indeed can be. ... But Jesus says, "my grace is sufficient for you." Yes it is sufficient to overcome and subdue the "natural," carnal, heart. {YI, November 1, 1857 par. 7}

Now is the time to put forth earnest effort to overcome the natural tendencies of the carnal heart. {Mar 243.3}

Of what good would He deprive us? He would deprive us of the privilege of giving up to the natural passions of the carnal heart. {2MCP 647.1}

"The carnal [or natural] mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." {ST, May 30, 1895 par. 3} (Brackets in the original)

That which is pleasing to the natural heart and carnal mind is cherished. {SA 149.1}

The refining influence of the grace of God changes the natural disposition of man. Heaven would not be desirable to the carnal-minded; their natural, unsanctified hearts would feel no attraction toward that pure and holy place; ... The carnal propensities which reign in the natural heart must be subdued by the grace of Christ, before fallen man can be elevated to harmonize with Heaven. {8Red 73.1}

It looks like the Holy Spirit can still work miracles, in spite of the material He has to work with.

Welcome back to the 21st century. I've missed you so much.

I'm not exactly sure what he's saying either, but he told me a few years ago that while prelaps can believe in victory over sin, their theology cannot logically arrive at that conclusion. He never explained to me why. And this latest quote seems to assert that the experience of victory is also beyond the grasp of prelaps.

Anyway, I'm guessing he wrote that several years ago.


Assuming the postlaps definition of sin as willful disobedience, absolutely the 144k have complete victory over sin. Every true Christian, from Adam to the end, lives in complete victory over sin.

If we are tempted on one set of things (which require fighting against feelings and desires, requiring fervent prayer), and Christ was tempted on another set of things, which He could defeat simply by following His own inclinations, then what does the one have to do with the other? (To be kept in mind that in addition to taking our sinful flesh, Christ bore our sin.)

I agree completely with this.



I completely disagree with him here, if this is what he is saying, unless this is qualified in some way.

Anyway, a person doesn't have to have a correct theology to know Christ and walk with Him (which equals victory).

That would mean that sinful flesh is the key to victory. I don't believe that.

It is easy to arrive at the doctrine of victory over sin without any kind of "lapsarian" at all. All you need is this: Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. (2 Corinthians 5:17)

If that's not enough, there's this: Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. (1 John 3:9)

If they don't like that, there's this: His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3)

Sticking with Peter, we find this: Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. (1 Peter 1:16)

No, postlaps do not have a monopoly on it. Just gotta take the Bible as it reads. We non-postlaps can do that, too. We just don't look for victory through the flesh, sinful or otherwise. We look for victory through His divine nature, not our evil nature.


LK said this in a sermon:

Had He followed His own inclinations, He would not have taken our sin upon Himself. He doesn't like sin. Becoming sin, being numbered with transgressors, was against His inclinations. He had to fight His inclinations in order to fulfill His mission.

In contrast, it is in perfect conformity to our inclinations to sin. We have to fight our inclinations in order to be holy as He is holy. Just like Him, our mission involves going against what comes naturally to us.

Of course He would have. That was the only way to save us, which was His inclination. Christ is agape, self-sacrificing love; it is His inclination to sacrifice Himself for others.



Again, Christ is self-sacrificing love. I don't see how you're coming to this conclusion.



I agree that if is in conformity to our inclinations to sin. If Christ did not take our sinful nature, then His experience was as different from ours in this respect as possible. Far from being tempted in all points as we are, it's difficult to see how He would have been tempted in any point as we are.



I don't see this. If Christ is self-sacrificing love, then His inclination is to sacrifice Himself. He gave Himself for us. That's the character of God. I'm not seeing how, from your perspective, you would see any difficulty involved in this. What inclination would there be to fight against? His inclination would have been 100% aligned with His Father's. It would have been no harder for Christ to do right than God.

Arnold, two questions. The two points where I see that postlapsarians and prelapsarians differ are the following:

a.Christ was/was not tempted from within.
b.Christ had/did not have hereditary tendencies to sin (i.e. passed genetically).

I'm assuming you are on the prelapsarian side of these questions. Is this correct? That is, you believe Christ was not tempted from within, and you believe that Christ did not have hereditary tendencies to sin (i.e. passed genetically).

These two points above I believe are true of every postlapsarian and every prelapsarian. (i.e. Every postlasparian and prelapsarian disagree regarding these two points).

I don't know any postlapsarians that believe things you ascribe to postlapsarians. Not a one. Now you claim to know some, which may well be the case (quoting someone would be nice). Maybe LK is one. You seem to at least imply that. You seem to say that DP is not. (So even you personally know of postlapsarians who are not. I would expect you would accept my claim at face value that I don't know any, and I know quite a few postlapsarians.)

So the issues that you bring up are at best true of a very small subset of postlapsarians, and it is certainly out of line to make broad brushed statements regarding postlapsarians on the basis of a possible very small subset. It would be fine to discuss the issues you have in mind as issues, but this should be done without the misleading labels. (i.e. discussions of theology you see as aberrant that you've come across, as opposed to something which has to do with postlapsariaism as a whole).